EN中文

自然资源学报, 2023, 38(5): 1300-1317 doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20230512

其他研究论文

基于利益相关者感知视角的生态系统服务研究进展

张宇硕,1, 刘博宇2, 毕旭3, 王彬4, 眭任静1

1.山西财经大学文化旅游学院，太原 030006

2.太原理工大学矿业工程学院，太原 030024

3.山西财经大学资源环境学院，太原 030006

4.苏州大学社会学院，苏州 215127

Research progress of ecosystem services based on stakeholder's perception

ZHANG Yu-shuo,1, LIU Bo-yu2, BI Xu3, WANG Bin4, SUI Ren-jing1

1. Faculty of Culture Tourism, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006, China

2. College of Mining Engineer, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan 030024, China

3. College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006, China

4. School of Social Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215127, Jiangsu, China

收稿日期: 2022-08-22   修回日期: 2022-12-2  

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目(42107498)
山西省高等学校科技创新项目(2020L0248)

Received: 2022-08-22   Revised: 2022-12-2  

作者简介 About authors

张宇硕（1985- ），女，山西神池人，博士，副教授，研究方向为土地利用变化及其生态效应。E-mail: zhangys@sxufe.edu.cn

摘要

作为生态系统服务的共同生产者和受益者，利益相关者在生态系统服务供给、需求与决策中发挥着重要作用，对探究生态系统服务的社会相关性和潜在社会影响至关重要。如何从利益相关者感知视角进行生态系统服务评估、揭示生态系统服务感知的影响因素、平衡不同利益相关者的多重生态效益已成为一项重要议题。本文基于国内外生态系统服务感知研究的理论基础和实践进展，在归纳利益相关者及其感知概念的基础之上，整理介绍利益相关者感知在生态系统服务研究中的应用，系统梳理利益相关者识别、感知数据获取、感知评估方法特点，阐释影响利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的多维因素及其作用机制。从生态系统服务社会公平性、决策参与度、可持续供给理念出发，以利益相关者为核心，构建一个社会感知评估、社会效应分析、政策实践应用互动融合的研究框架，进而有效链接自然生态系统和人类社会系统。未来研究有必要进一步阐明生态系统服务的多样化社会需求与差异、挖掘多源大数据在多尺度生态系统服务感知评估中的作用、扩大空间分析方法应用范围、揭示生态系统服务感知差异形成机制。

关键词： 生态系统服务; 利益相关者; 感知; 研究框架

Abstract

As the coproducers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services, stakeholders play an important role in the supply, demand and decision-making of ecosystem services, and are crucial for exploring the social relevance and potential social effect of ecosystem services. It is important to evaluate ecosystem services from the perspective of stakeholder's perception, reveal the influencing factors, and balance the multiple ecological benefits of different stakeholders. Based on the theoretical framework and practical progress of ecosystem services at home and abroad, we summarized the concepts of stakeholder and perception, introduced the application of stakeholder's perception in ecosystem service research. Then, we analyzed the characteristics of identifying stakeholders, data acquirement and evaluation methods. Furthermore, we explained the influencing factors and mechanism of stakeholder's perception of ecosystem services. Under the guidance of the concept of social equity, decision-making participation and sustainable development of ecosystem services, we built a research framework taking stakeholders as core elements for the interaction and integration of social perception assessment, social effect analysis and policy-making application, and then effectively linked the natural ecosystem and human social system. In the future, we should focus on: (1) clarifying the diversified social needs and differences of ecosystem services, (2) deepening the role of multi-source big data in multi-scale ecosystem service perception assessment, (3) expanding the application of spatial analysis methods, and (4) revealing the influential mechanism of ecosystem service perception differences.

Keywords： ecosystem service; stakeholder; perception; research framework

PDF (1911KB) 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

张宇硕, 刘博宇, 毕旭, 王彬, 眭任静. 基于利益相关者感知视角的生态系统服务研究进展[J]. 自然资源学报, 2023, 38(5): 1300-1317 doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20230512

ZHANG Yu-shuo, LIU Bo-yu, BI Xu, WANG Bin, SUI Ren-jing. Research progress of ecosystem services based on stakeholder's perception[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2023, 38(5): 1300-1317 doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20230512

利益相关者的生态系统服务感知是指人们对生态系统服务（Ecosystem Service，ES）的偏好、态度和价值观[1]，反映了社会系统与生态系统之间的复杂作用关系。不同社会群体的生态系统服务需求、获取类型及方式不同，对生态系统服务的感知亦有所不同，其引发的生态系统服务决策和行动也不相同。从全球范围来看，生态系统管理已经由纯自然的生态保护向人与自然和谐发展的综合管理方式转变[2]，生态政策的制定越来越要求综合考虑生态系统的生态、社会、经济属性及相互关系。因此，深入了解社会群体对生态系统服务的态度和观念[3,4]，准确把握利益相关者感知下的生态系统服务状况及影响机制，对规避不同社会群体的生态系统服务利益冲突[5,6]，缓解生态系统服务社会参与度低、公平性不足、现实效应不显著等问题[7]，推动个人参与生态保护决策制定的社会进程具有重要现实意义。

近年来，从利益相关者视角阐释社会系统界定下的生态系统服务供给已被国内外学界重点关注[8,9]。评估视角逐渐由侧重生态属性及其内在价值的生物物理评估、侧重经济属性及其效用价值的经济评估，向关注社会文化属性及其非效用价值的社会评估过渡[10]。随着研究不断深入，社会评估依托的理论基础由单一的生态学、地理学、社会学等向多学科交叉转变[11,12]，研究对象由单一层次受益者向多层次和高层级受益群体转化[13]，量化方法也由指标统计向统计分析与空间分析相结合过渡[14,15]，研究内容由生态系统服务社会重要性评估及其利益相关者的群体差异、区域差异剖析[16]，发展到生态系统服务关系识别、影响因素解析及政策效应阐释[17,18]，越来越重视生态系统服务感知与人类福祉提供、政策管理实践之间的衔接关系。然而，利益相关者意愿的真正整合仍然是一项悬而未决的任务。2022年《关于自然多样价值与估值的评估报告》指出[19]，在所调查的1000多项研究中，只有2%的研究咨询了利益相关者对评估结果的意见，只有1%的研究涉及利益相关者对自然价值评估过程的每一个步骤。因此，亟需解决生态系统服务利益相关者之间的权利不对称问题，促进多样的生态系统服务价值评估与决策制定。

利益相关者对生态系统服务的感知具有系统等级性、区域差异性及要素复杂性等特征，不同研究对受益群体的范围界定、数据获取、评估方法及影响因素识别等存在明显差异，从利益相关者感知视角构建生态系统服务分析框架的研究更是较少。本文基于国内外生态系统服务的利益相关者感知研究进展，介绍利益相关者与感知的概念，整理利益相关者感知在生态系统服务研究中的应用方向，梳理利益相关者识别、感知数据获取及感知评估方法主要特点，厘清利益相关者感知的多维影响因素。在已有研究基础上构建了基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究框架，以期为丰富生态系统服务理论研究体系、提高生态系统服务管理效率提供参考依据。

1 主要概念与内涵

1.1 利益相关者概念演化

“利益相关者”是在20世纪60年代经济学家探索公司治理模式过程中出现的[20]。1963年，利益相关者（Stakeholder）由美国斯坦福研究院用于描述与“股东（Shareholder）”相对应的“与企业具有密切关系的所有人”。1965年，美国学者Ansoff最早将该词引入管理学和经济学，扩大了利益相关者理论研究的影响力，随后由社会科学逐渐延伸至自然科学领域。20世纪90年代，利益相关者概念被广泛引入自然资源管理领域，用以探究全球发展由侧重经济效率向注重公平与环境过渡阶段社会、经济与环境要素的兼容性。其中，Grimble等[21]将其定义为“在一个特定的问题或系统中拥有共同利益的任何有组织或无组织群体，他们可以处于社会的任何级别或地位，从全球、国家和区域到家庭或家庭内部，可以是任何规模或集合的群体”。2008年，Reed等[22,23]针对利益相关者参与环境规划与管理的现实需求，将利益相关者定义为“受正在考虑（或调查）的问题（或决策）影响、或可能影响该问题（或决策）、或对该问题（或决策）有任何兴趣的人”，并将利益相关者参与（Stakeholder participation）视为生态环境管理中“民主的基石”[24]。随着利益相关者概念、方法、实践在生态环境领域的应用，2018年，Raum[25]对生态环境领域的利益相关者研究进行了回顾，在Freeman[26]、Grimble等[21]、Friedman等 [27]研究基础上对利益相关者概念进行了修订，将其定义为“任何对生态系统服务感兴趣或有影响力的组织、团体或个人”。

利益相关者概念逐渐从经济学向多学科领域拓展，由狭义的利益主体向广义的社会主体转变，从作为决策与行为主体的单一社会属性向作为社会和生态系统纽带的多重属性过渡，从描述自然生态系统现象向阐释社会生态系统机制发展。虽然不同领域学者对利益相关者的定义仍存在一定差异，但利益相关者概念、理论与方法为深入理解生态系统服务、人类福祉及自然资源管理提供了有效途径。

1.2 感知与认知的概念辨析

感知，既是在感觉上对外界刺激的反映，也是把特定现象主动而明确地镌刻在脑海中，而其他现象被忽略或被排斥的过程[28]。心理学将人类的感知分为两个阶段：感觉（Sensation）和知觉（Perception）。感觉是客观刺激作用于感受器官，经过脑的信息加工活动所产生的对客观事物基本属性的反映，知觉是指人对客观环境和主体状态的感觉和解释过程[29]。绝大多数被人类感知到的事物都是有价值的，或为了生存的需要，或提供某种从文化中衍生出的满足感。认知心理学将人的认知（Cognition）定义为个体主动寻找信息、接受信息，并在一定的结构中进行信息加工的心理过程[30]。心理学家对认知研究的共同认识是，人的认知就是个体借助一定的接收器（感觉和视觉），通过感知主动获得一定量的信息，并对这些信息进行逐层加工的过程[31]。因此，认知与感知的含义是有重叠的，感知更加强调人类接触外部世界的过程。

国内外学者尚未对“感知”和“认知”在生态系统服务研究中的概念差异进行界定。国外相关研究采用的词汇主要是“perception”，强调人对感觉到的信息加工后的结果，对“cognition”的运用较少。国内在生态系统服务利益相关者研究领域使用“感知”概念亦多于“认知”[32,33]。在Web of Science和CNKI数据库将“ecosystem service”与“perception”为主要关键词进行检索。结果显示，1993年开始出现“生态系统服务感知”主题的英文论文，2009年开始快速增长，截至2022年6月底，发文量为1456篇。中文文献最初发表于2016年，累计发文量为24篇。

2 基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究现状

2.1 利益相关者感知在生态系统服务研究中的主要应用

掌握利益相关者感知在生态系统服务研究中的应用方向是探索生态系统服务社会效应的基础。国内外学者主要从利益相关者感知视角探究生态系统服务的非物质形态属性、社会文化价值、与人类福祉关系及生态修复与保护效果。

（1）基于利益相关者感知的生态系统文化服务评估。建立在生态系统有形物质供给和无形文化供给可分离的二元论思想基础之上，生态系统服务被分为物质形态和非物质形态两种[34]。《千年生态系统评估》报告[35]将生态系统文化服务定义为“人类通过精神满足、认知能力的发展、反思、娱乐以及审美体验等从生态系统中所获取的非物质收益”。相较于供给、调节、支持服务，生态系统文化服务的产生与获取具有一定主观性[36]，更容易被人们直接感知与体验[37,38]。因此，大量研究通过深度访谈、问卷调查、参与式地图绘制、地理大数据挖掘与融合等方法，获取不同利益相关者对生态系统文化服务供给、需求及管理偏好的感知信息，探究文化服务的供需关系及其社会公平性等问题[39]。

（2）基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务社会文化价值评估。《千年生态系统评估》报告将生态系统服务的价值属性界定为：生态价值、经济价值和社会文化价值三类。作为一种非货币价值，社会文化价值是从人类感知、态度和价值观角度探讨生态系统服务的社会文化偏好，能够揭示被货币语言所掩盖的世界观及其背后动机。已有研究主要运用参与式评估或群组价值评估等方法，遵循生态系统服务社会文化价值应该由公众参与确定而不是对分别估算的个体偏好进行聚合的原则[40]，通过研究人员与利益相关者共同构成的群组研讨式价值诱探过程（Value elicitation），形成审议式或群组式的价值感知评估程序，构建和表达具有共享性的生态系统服务社会文化价值。

（3）基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务与人类福祉关系研究。人类福祉是表征人类生活状态及水平的多维概念，包括客观福祉与主观福祉，其中主观福祉是人们对自身生活水平等主观态度和情感的表达[41]。《千年生态系统评估》报告明确提出了生态系统服务对人类福祉的贡献。人类福祉不仅源于人们对生态系统产品和服务的实际使用，而且与生态系统服务之间存在相互依赖关系。由于一系列复杂因素的作用，生态系统所提供的人类福祉并不是自动地、均衡地分配给所有个体或社会群体[42]，而是存在明显的社会差异、区域差异及决策差异。因此，依托利益相关者感知来揭示生态系统服务所提供福祉的差异性问题，有助于识别生态系统服务与人类福祉之间的关系、阐明生态系统服务对人们维持生活质量意愿的影响差异、提升生态系统管理决策的社会公平性。

（4）基于利益相关者感知的生态系统修复与保护效果评估。作为生态修复的主要服务对象，利益相关者感知是生态修复效果评估的重要组成部分[43]。鉴于感知过程的动态性和差异性，可基于利益相关者感知识别生态修复的有利和不利影响。如，Feng等[44]对中国西北部黑河和石羊河流域研究表明，生态修复对当地部分居民生计产生了负面影响，需要协同政府援助政策来推动生态修复项目的实施。生态修复效果具有复杂性和时间动态性，通过对比生态修复项目实施后一定时段或不同时段之间利益相关者感知变化，可为生态系统恢复提供长期利益和获得公众支持的机会。如，Ulrika等[45]和Emma等[46]分别对英国北部迪尔恩河流域生态修复前期、中期、后期与实施后14年的感知变化进行研究，发现河流修复工程可以重建河流景观并维持长期的生态系统健康。以利益相关者感知为核心的评估方法不仅能够从宏观层面了解生态修复给生态系统带来多大程度上的改变，还有助于了解政策实施成本及政策对实施地区利益相关者产生的影响。

2.2 利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的研究方法

2.2.1 利益相关者识别

利益相关者识别对生态系统服务感知评估具有重要且直接的影响[47]。由于不同生态系统服务的利益相关者具有明显的制度层次差异、区域差异和社会特征差异，国内外学者也因此对利益相关者的识别方法进行了大量研究。

系统利益相关者分析（Systematic Stakeholder Analysis，SSA）为生态系统服务感知评估提供了有效的利益相关者识别方法。该方法涉及利益相关者初选、关键利益相关者识别、关键利益相关者分类、利益相关者关系调查四个步骤（图1）。第一步主要借助研究经验、文献分析或抽样方法确定利益相关者来源。第二步主要利用访谈和问卷对筛选出的利益相关者样本进行制度层次（Institutional level）划分（表1），制度层次是体现利益相关者社会特征与关系的基本指征。第三步是根据各个制度层次利益相关者与生态系统服务的互动关系或参与情况进行分类。例如，可根据利益相关者利用生态系统服务的主观能动性分为主动型（Active）和被动型（Passive）、根据受生态系统服务变化影响的直接程度分为主要型（Primary）和次要型（Secondary）、根据利益相关者的相对影响和重要性分为重要型（Importance）和影响型（Influence）等。利益相关者类别和分类程度往往难以事先确定，需根据具体案例来确定。第四步主要通过访谈、利益相关者矩阵等方法揭示不同利益相关者之间的社会关系与文化背景，以确定利益冲突的可能性与程度，评估并预测不同利益相关者群体之间的合作潜力。方法的选择取决于利益相关者分析的确切目的、可用资源和研究人员技能。如，Cohen-Shacham等[60]在以色列Hula湿地生态系统服务利益相关者感知研究中，首先利用滚雪球抽样法对利益相关者进行初步筛选，然后分别使用半结构式访谈、分析式分类及关联分析方法实现了利益相关者识别。

图1

新窗口打开| 下载原图ZIP| 生成PPT

图1   系统利益相关者分析的方法流程

Fig. 1   Steps of systematic stakeholder analysis


表1   不同层次生态系统服务利益相关者选择方法与案例

Table 1  Classification and example that are related with identification of stakeholders of ecosystem services

研究区域利益相关者抽样总体抽样方法制度层次样本量/人
法国海域[48]国家利益相关者委员会和海滨委员会成员电子邮件邀请政府组织（国家层次）115
葡萄牙[49]区域和中央行政当局、政界、学术界、非政府组织和产业界人士电子邮件邀请政府组织（国家层次）30
英国[50]英国海洋和沿海学科和部门工作的从业者、研究人员和决策者网络注册方式随机抽样政府组织（国家层次）181
德国和奥地利[51]奥地利和德国的环境科学家和农民国际网络代表成员电子邮件邀请政府组织（国家层次）306
苏格兰三个水库[52]城市环境监管机构、农业顾问、水产业工作人员和流域科学家随机抽样、滚雪球抽样政府组织（区域层次）43
西班牙地中海区域[53]普通居民、环境专家、企业工作者布设空间样点并随机抽样局地社区、研究中心、私人企业441
德国Lahn河流域[54]本地企业业主、公营部门工人和居民发送邮件进行在线调查政府组织（局地层次）、私人企业98
伊朗KR自然保护区[55]普通居民、社区代表、保护区官员、村委会工作人员和护林员目的性抽样、滚雪球抽样、方便性抽样局地保护区、社区、村落170
阿根廷坦迪利亚[56]所在农场有河谷的当地农民半结构式访谈局地村落40
中国甘南高原[57]研究区若干乡的当地农民和牧民随机抽样、入户调查局地乡（镇）689
中国锡林郭勒盟[58]研究区24个村落的当地牧民分层随机抽样局地村落144
哥斯达黎加南部农村[59]当地的土地所有者目的性抽样、滚雪球抽样局地村落29

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


生态系统服务的利益相关者通常涉及多个制度层次的组织或个人，单一层次会有意无意的造成对某些社会群体产生偏向。目前，已有研究多将生态系统服务的利益相关者限定在与研究区行政等级接近的某一制度层次内，对层次差异、跨层次效应对利益相关者感知产生的影响关注不足。大多数研究将参与研究的利益相关者作为独立的个体或分隔的群体，对其社会关系在生态系统服务感知中的作用有待深入阐释。

2.2.2 利益相关者感知数据获取

如何获取多方利益相关者对生态系统服务准确且可靠的感知数据和信息，是生态系统服务感知评估的关键环节。目前主要的获取方法包括：文件资料法（Document research）、专家法（Expert based approaches）、访谈法（Interviews）、问卷调查法（Questionnaires）、焦点小组讨论法（Focus group）、参与式制图法（Participatory mapping）、大数据挖掘法（Big data）（表2）。为了降低数据的主观性和不确定性，提升评估准确性[62]，具体研究中通常结合多种途径的数据来源。

表2   利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的数据获取方式[61]

Table 2  Overview of data collection techniques that have been applied in the evaluation of ecosystem service based stakeholder's perception

数据收集
技术		常用方法样本评估类型优点缺点
个人小组专家定性定量
文件资料法书面文本分析、其他媒体分析（如照片、电影）√√√√低成本，研究完成后可以纠正错误，可扩大研究的时间跨度数据获取受限，信度、效度分析存在问题
专家法德尔菲调查√√√低成本，适用于数据贫乏的情况，可以使用术语结果取决于小组成员的选择
访谈法非结构化访谈√√更彻底地理解人们是如何看待ES的，高度灵活性小样本，不能代表整个群体
问卷调查结构化面对面访谈、Q值法、网络调查、邮件调查√√可以收集大量数据，并进行定量分析仅限于标准化问题，面试时几乎没有灵活性，高成本
焦点小组研讨会、公民陪审团、快速参与式农村评估√√受访者可以与小组成员讨论这个问题，受访者可以作出明智的决定，可以获取共享价值极化效应（态度变得更加极端），地位较高的团体成员可以控制团体
参与式制图公众参与式地理信息系统技术√√可以收集空间感知数据，进行ES空间分析参与者绘图潜力有限，无法包含更多的空间属性
大数据挖掘网络爬虫、深度学习、云计算√√弥补了传统研究只能基于小规模抽样和经验总结进行小尺度、单维度评估的缺陷，提供了新的研究对象社交平台数据的有偏性，多源数据带来的评估结果难解释性

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


（1）文献资料法是一种通过文本、图像或其他形式媒体，近似估计个人、团体或更广泛公众态度与价值观的方法[63]。借助定量的机械性方法和定性的解释性方法能够深入理解不同媒体形式所传达的信息，获得更多关于社会文化价值观的数据[64]。（2）专家法是通过专家的专业知识与研究经验，获取他们界定的利益相关者对生态系统服务的价值判断信息[65]。（3）访谈法主要通过访谈方式了解受访者如何以及为什么重视某项生态系统服务，允许受访者使用自己的语言自由谈论他们对当地生态系统服务的认识以及研究人员预先不确定的问题[66]。（4）问卷调查法是一种可以获取利益相关者关于各项生态系统服务“多重要”“多少量”和“多大频率”等量化指标的方法，用于收集大量数据并进行定量分析，广泛用于测度研究区社会总体代表性抽样的一般模式[67]。（5）焦点小组讨论是一种让受访者有机会获得额外信息、并留出时间进行反思和小组审议的方法[68]，获得受访者对生态系统服务的观点和态度反馈，特别是研究人员可能不知道或不重视的问题。（6）参与式地图绘制通常被称为公众参与GIS或参与式GIS，是一种空间属性明确的方法，能将利益相关者对生态系统服务的空间感知知识转化为制图和描述性信息[69]。（7）大数据挖掘法主要是利用社交媒体数据、遥感影像数据、POI（Point of Interest）数据、位置服务（Location Based Service）数据等多源地理大数据[70]，借助机器学习、云计算等数据挖掘与分析手段，获取大规模、多类型、大尺度生态系统服务感知数据。

2.2.3 利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的评估方法

基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究已应用于都市区、保护区、基础设施集中区、流域等，但目前尚未形成一套标准的感知评估方法。常用的评估方法可归纳为质性评估、指数评估、空间评估三类（表3）。科学的评估过程通常需要综合利用多种数据和多类方法。

表3   基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务评估方法及案例

Table 3  Index system of evaluation of ecosystem services based on stakeholder's perception

评估方法评估内容操作方法研究区案例优点缺点
质性评估ES需求驱动下的利益相关者关系、价值观差异、决策偏好及其对ES供给的影响等评估者对利益相关者进行观察、访谈和行动研究，利用NVivo等质性分析建模软件对获取资料进行编码、转录、统计及归纳或演绎分析以色列Hula湿地[60]深入挖掘受访者对ES的价值观及其背后原因或动机的看法仅针对受访者与ES的具体情境，不追求普遍意义的知识和规律
指标评估关键ES、ES重要性Likert量表、单变量指标统计英国[50]指标选择性强，可涵盖大量ES议题，为我们充分描述和理解人类福祉、生态状况，以及人类与生态系统之间关系提供必要信息大量与ES感知有关的个体指标之间的信息容易具有模糊性或相互矛盾，必要时需要构建一些更具直接意义的复合指标
ES重要性和脆弱性Likert量表、重要性—脆弱性矩阵西班牙半干旱流域[71]
ES供给能力和重要性Likert量表、二项logistic回归、卡方检验西班牙八个案例区[72]
ES重要性、可管理性、脆弱性和损害度Likert量表、多样化感知指数中国甘南高原[57]
ES重要性、ES提供人类福祉的满意度Likert量表中国延河流域[73]
空间评估ES供给的位置和范围参与式制图伊朗保护区[74]为生态资源的配置和利用提供基础信息，并为某些综合指标（如生态系统多样性）评估提供有效手段受限于受访者的空间感知能力和绘图潜力，仅能揭示少量的ES空间特征与关系
ES强度和多样性的空间格局参与式制图、Shannon-Wiener指数西班牙城市森林景观[75]
生态系统文化服务的价值指数空间分布SolVES模型关中—天水经济区[76]

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


（1）质性评估是文献和访谈资料的集合。通过对受访者进行访谈或直接参与利益相关者的行为活动等互动性方式，获取利益相关者感知资料。借助定性数据分析方法将收集的资料转换为具有多元化生态系统服务价值观的利益相关者感知数据和信息，并进行解释与分析。质性评估没有预先安排好的评估结构，研究人员本身就是评估工具，着重从受访者角度揭示其对生态系统服务的看法及其行为的内在意义，以受访者对自身行为的解释作为生态系统服务变化的原因依据[77]。

（2）指标评估是指标变量的集合。以利益相关者与生态系统服务之间的关系为基础，依据代表性、可靠性及可行性原则选择核心评估指标，借助多项单一指标或一项复合指标对利益相关者的生态系统服务感知进行评估[42]。通过指标结果分析与受访者社会特征识别，揭示生态系统服务感知价值、多项生态系统服务之间关系、生态系统服务与受访者社会特征之间关系等，阐明社会感知下的生态系统服务重要性、权衡关系及利益相关者之间的生态系统服务需求差异。

（3）空间评估是空间数据的集合。通过将空间属性明确的生物物理数据与基于社会建构的感知数据联系起来，实现生态系统服务感知信息的空间制图与评估[78]。目前主要有三种评估途径：① 在访谈和问卷调查中纳入与生态系统服务密切相关的土地利用或生态环境问项，借助土地或生态环境空间数据与生态系统服务之间的对应关系实现感知信息的空间表达；② 利用参与式制图方法获取受访者对生态系统服务感知的空间数据，通过对该空间数据的处理和分析进行生态系统服务空间评估；③ 利用SolVES模型对生态系统服务进行度量和制图，该方法通常以能与土地、生态、环境等空间数据建立关系的生态系统文化服务为主。

2.3 利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的影响因素

实现生态系统服务的有效管理，不仅需要可靠合理的方法进行感知评估，还需要解释“为什么被访者会产生这样的观点或态度”。识别生态系统服务感知的影响因素，尝试在更广泛的社会结构和过程中解读经验，是感知评估要解决的核心问题。根据影响因素的作用对象和作用方式，可将已有研究的利益相关者感知影响因素归为三类：作用于生态系统及其服务的自然环境因素、作用于利益相关者的个体特征及其社会背景因素、作用于利益相关者与生态系统服务相互关系的因素（图2）。

图2

新窗口打开| 下载原图ZIP| 生成PPT

图2   利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的影响因素

Fig. 2   Influencing factors of ecosystem services perceived by stakeholders


2.3.1 作用于生态系统及其服务的自然环境因素

自然环境因素主要通过两种方式对利益相关者感知产生影响：一种是通过人类感官直接影响生态系统服务感知；另一种是自然环境变化引发的人类抵抗或适应导致个人或群体价值观、社会文化传统发生变化，进而影响利益相关者感知。已有研究主要从土地利用/覆盖变化和生态系统服务供给两方面进行阐释。

土地利用/覆盖变化是直接影响利益相关者生态系统服务感知的外在驱动因素。一方面，某一土地利用/覆盖类型变化会增强或减弱利益相关者对其所提供生态系统服务的感知强度。Vihervaara等[79]对乌拉圭的研究表明，森林种植园面积扩张增强了当地居民对其所提供水质净化与牲畜放养服务的重视程度。另一方面，土地利用/覆盖结构的空间异质性使利益相关者之间产生感知差异。Van Zanten等[80]对荷兰农业景观的视觉偏好研究发现，受访者对单一森林景观的偏好程度高于农田，对整体农田景观结构的偏好程度远高于森林。

生态系统服务供给数量、类型和空间范围决定了人类社会的潜在使用范围，使其社会感知存在显著差异。人类从短期的、局地的、有限的生态系统服务类型到长期的、全球的、多样化的生态系统服务类型中受益，但生态系统服务的特征尺度导致从这些服务中受益的群体是有限的，使生态系统服务供给与受益之间出现权衡。例如，在流域尺度上维持合理的径流量对下游地区有利，但限制了上、中游地区对水资源的获取[81]。

2.3.2 作用于利益相关者的个体特征及其社会背景因素

个人的生态环境价值取向通常从价值观角度影响人类对生态系统服务的感知。Stern等[82]认为环境价值观有三种价值取向：自利主义、人类利他主义和生物圈利他主义。不同于基于自身利益取向的自利主义，人类利他主义将关注范围从个人扩大到更大、甚至是遥远的区域，生物圈利他主义则主要指向其他物种。生物中心价值观导向的个体更可能支持生态保护策略，而人类中心价值观导向的个体倾向于支持促进生态系统服务使用的管理策略[83]。

年龄、性别、教育、收入等个体特征是直接影响利益相关者感知的内在驱动因素。Yu等[84]对中国的研究发现，居住地点、教育水平和职业兴趣是影响生态系统服务偏好的主要因素。Rudzitis[85]通过对美国西部移民潮进行研究发现，更年轻、受教育程度更高的城市居民更加重视生态系统保护。Bea等[51]对德国和奥地利研究发现，女性农民认为自然栖息地对农业生态系统最为重要，而男性农民则更重视土壤质量。Martín-López等[86]对西班牙的研究发现，农村地区人口对生态系统服务的认识主要基于与传统农业活动相关的经验和地方知识，更加重视供给服务，相比之下城市人口对生态系统服务的感知主要通过教育，更重视空气净化、气候调节、美学价值等服务，对粮食供给的感知程度较低。

文化、政治和经济环境、生活经验等社会背景因素对生态系统服务感知有很大影响，而且具有显著地方性。Buijs等[87]研究发现，与荷兰本土受访者相比，来自伊斯兰国家的移民对荷兰生态景观的评价整体较低，其中对自然景观的评价低于人文景观，主要是由伊斯兰文化和基督教文化对自然环境印象的文化差异引起的。Iniesta-Arandia等[88]对西班牙东南部Nacimiento流域的研究表明，受访者在该地区的居住时间及其社会关系是影响地方居民生态知识与生态系统服务感知的主要因素。也有学者认为，生态系统服务感知不太依赖于文化背景，而是基于进化原则[89]。例如，即使是来自完全不同文化背景的人，对带有水元素的生态系统也具有相似的感知和偏好[90]。

2.3.3 作用于利益相关者与生态系统服务相互关系的因素

为了识别哪些生态系统服务对利益相关者最为重要，往往需要了解不同受益者所从事的活动。人类社会以多种方式依赖和利用生态系统服务：基于生存目的获取食物和原材料、基于经济目的获取自然资源、基于精神需求获取休闲娱乐氛围。研究表明，即使是同一项生态系统服务，利用方式不同会使利益相关者看法截然不同。Quintas-Soriano等[53]对西班牙地中海地区研究发现，农民认为河流湿地提供的最重要生态系统服务是灌溉供水，生态环境保护组织认为是野生动物栖息地，而旅游者则认为是娱乐和审美。Maass等[91]对墨西哥太平洋沿岸热带干燥森林的研究发现，当地社区农民最重视与其养牛产业密切相关的那些生态系统服务，旅游经营者则认为景观美感最重要。

事实上，诸多生态系统服务通常是难以直接感知的，需要掌握相关专业知识[92]。利益相关者所掌握的知识和信息在生态系统服务感知评估中具有重要作用。如，Tisdell等[93]研究发现，为受访者提供有关特定动物物种濒危程度的信息，能够增强他们为保护这些物种支付费用的意愿。Bateman等[94]研究发现，为林地所有者提供与木材供给有关的土地保护信息，会增强受访者对林地生态系统服务的重视程度。然而，知识和信息对生态系统服务感知的影响并不是单向的。一些学者通过研究环境知识对环境行为的影响发现，人们所掌握的信息差异对人类支持环境保护行为的实际影响很小[95]。

3 构建基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究框架

基于利益相关者感知与生态系统服务的概念、方法及关系研究，以人地关系地域系统理论为指导[9,96]，从利益相关者视角切入，以社会—生态系统适应性治理为目标，探索公平性、科学性、有效性决策管理模式为准则，构建一个多层次主体参与、多尺度服务评估、多学科交叉的研究框架（图3）。其基本逻辑可以表述为：针对某一区域，探讨不同利益相关者对不同尺度生态系统服务的感知差异及其影响因素，进行生态系统服务权衡与协同分析，辨析生态系统服务社会公平性、决策参与度、人类福祉之间的互动关系，揭示不同生态系统服务的社会效应，形成社会感知评估→社会效应分析→政策实践应用良性循环关系，进而有效链接自然生态系统和人类社会系统，为区域生态系统服务可持续供给提供科学依据。

图3

新窗口打开| 下载原图ZIP| 生成PPT

图3   基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究框架

Fig. 3   Ecosystem services assessment framework based on stakeholder's perception


3.1 多层次利益相关者参与的多尺度生态系统服务感知评估

受人口、教育、社会阶层、政策法规、宗教文化、经济水平等社会、经济及政策因素差异化与多元化影响，人类社会系统的需求偏好、主观感知、文化体验各不相同，具有社会、政治与经济过程的层次差异，其内嵌的社会与文化分异将对生态系统服务动态演化产生复杂反馈作用[97]。社会、政治与经济过程的层次结构是由各等级制度或社会组织的作用、影响与使用权范围决定的，利益相关者层次性的本质是社会、政治与经济过程的层次性。基于此，利益相关者被划分为个体—家庭—村（镇）—县（市）—州（省）—国家—多国—国际等制度层次[35]，为利益相关者分类提供理论依据。

不同制度层次的利益相关者之间存在复杂的相互作用。例如，微观层次行为主体通过自身与生态系统相互作用获得恵益，国家层次通过实施针对生态系统服务或与生态系统服务无直接关系的决策而对微观层次产生影响。已有学者提出，生态系统服务感知评估的关键是要囊括所有层次的利益相关者价值观[72]。Rodríguez-Morales等[75]在城市周边公共森林生态系统服务感知研究中纳入多个层次的利益相关者，研究发现多层次利益相关者分析能更有效地揭示同一种决策在多个层次同时执行而产生的生态系统服务累积效应。不仅能反映不同制度层次相互作用对生态系统服务感知的影响，还能为平衡多个层次利益相关者需求提供政策介入平台。然而，利益相关者制度层次与生态系统服务空间尺度通常不一致，很少存在一个理想的生态系统服务尺度能同时满足多个层次利益相关者的需求。生态系统服务是在植物—地块—生态系统—景观—生物群落—大洲—全球等所有生态尺度上产生的，其供应影响到所有制度层次的利益相关者[98]。重要的是，一个地点的某一生态系统类型可能无法在另一个地点提供相同的服务，利益相关者通常需要跨越一系列生态系统服务尺度获取所需产品或服务。因而多尺度评估可以更好地反映决策的多层次特性[99]，并分析某一特定区域的外部驱动力。

面对生态系统服务利益相关者的多层次性和跨层次相互作用、生态系统服务生产和供给的尺度效应，需要以多个层次利益相关者需求与偏好、多个尺度生态系统服务为研究主线，基于生态系统服务空间尺度与利益相关者制度层次的对应关系，采用社会生态学和空间明确的生态系统服务评估方法，探明利益相关者对生态系统服务感知的一致性、差异性及关联性，协调多尺度生态系统服务在利益、成本及风险中的多层次权衡。

3.2 融合利益相关者感知的生态系统服务社会效应分析

利益相关者感知研究不仅能对生态系统服务进行基于市场的自然工具价值评估，而且能识别那些为人类提供重要福祉的生态系统服务非市场价值，例如气候调节和文化认同。大量研究利用价值量法对生态系统服务经济价值进行了定量评估，为深入理解其社会效应提供了理论基础。然而，价值量评估属于围绕专家知识和政府需求的“自上而下（Top-down）”评估模式，侧重于政府对生态系统服务的经济属性判定[100]，难以反映社会需求。另外，研究人员和专家的知识、经验受到文化规范、社会关系以及价值判断取向的影响，对生态系统服务实际供给、社会需求及变化趋势等理解不可避免地存在片面性。基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务评估是一种“自下而上（Bottom-up）”的评估模式，侧重于探究社会从生态系统中受益的方式以及重视某些生态系统服务的原因，关注生态系统服务的社会属性，有利于促进生态系统服务社会化并实现社会价值转换，揭示人类社会对生态系统服务的控制作用和反馈响应。在价值量评估中融入多层次利益相关者感知评估，实现对研究人员评估结果的不确定性检验，有助于提升生态治理过程的社会效益与经济效益。

生态系统服务感知评估与价值量评估在研究视角、方法及范式方面存在优势互补。为了提高生态系统服务的社会效应，可将感知评估与价值量评估相融合，从利益相关者角度开展未来生态系统服务需求预测、多情景土地利用模拟、土地利用情景多目标优化等研究，确定生态系统服务管理优先级，协调社会系统对生态系统服务需求差异带来的利益冲突。

3.3 整合利益相关者感知的生态系统服务政策优化途径

（1）借助机器学习、人工智能、大数据、云计算等先进信息技术手段，监测和挖掘生态系统服务长时段、多尺度的社会感知大数据，结合社会调查研究获取的小数据，建立多源数据相融合的动态数据平台，助力生态系统服务社会需求监测与变化趋势预测。（2）与生态系统服务相关的政策制度通常涉及不同层次、持有不同目标和价值观的个人或群体之间的权衡，其中一些群体可能在研究过程中并没有得到充分表达利益需求的权利。SSA方法有助于明确谁应该参与具体的政策过程以及原因，可参考SSA模式因地制宜地制定生态系统服务社会感知评估方法指南，开展多层次利益相关者、多尺度生态系统服务感知评估，形成科学、可行的生态系统服务社会感知评估体系，指导自上而下、自下而上的人类福祉供给模式[101]。（3）提升生态系统服务感知研究在国土空间规划中的效益。总体规划中融入利益相关者理念，根据特定利益相关者的相似性进行特征识别，例如角色、权利、管理目标或运营水平，提升一系列生态系统服务治理项目和战略的实施效率。专项规划中，面向生态、经济、社会问题与管理目标，根据不同区域的社会系统需求偏好与生态系统本底约束，厘清生态系统服务感知的关键驱动因子，系统开展社会效应分析。详细规划中，基于感知研究识别生态系统服务需求差异与冲突，缓解由于社会系统对供给服务的偏好高于调节、文化与支持服务而引起的权衡，建立平衡、公平和可持续的多功能国土空间生态规划体系。

4 结论

生态系统服务受社会与生态（子）系统动态过程与交互联系的复杂影响，生态系统服务理论研究与实践应用需要处理好自然生态系统与人类社会系统的相互关系。基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究旨在厘清社会行为主体对生态系统服务的观念、态度和需求，将不同层次行为主体的利益需求纳入管理决策中。因此，利益相关者感知已成为透视生态系统服务社会效应的重要视角，对促进生态系统服务研究由侧重生态属性向兼顾社会—生态属性、由供给向供需、由认知向决策发展具有重要意义。

本文围绕基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务应用方向、研究方法、影响因素三个议题梳理了相关研究进展。以人地关系地域系统理论为基础，构建了融合“社会感知评估→社会效应分析→政策实践应用”过程的概念框架。虽然国内外学者已开展大量基于利益相关者感知的生态系统服务研究，但一些关键问题还需要进一步探究。（1）需要进一步完善利益相关者识别和分析方法，阐明生态系统服务的多样化社会需求与差异；（2）充分利用多源大数据融合在生态系统服务社会感知研究中的作用，增加生态系统服务感知评估的空间尺度；（3）目前的评估方法无法将生态系统服务与不同生态系统连接起来，难以揭示生态系统结构对社会系统的贡献，需要扩大空间分析方法的应用范围；（4）需要进一步明确影响利益相关者生态系统服务感知差异的关键因素，揭示这些因素在利益相关者感知过程中的作用机制。未来需要在生态学、地理学、社会学和心理学理论与方法支撑的基础上，从多层次、多尺度、多方法视角探讨利益相关者与生态系统服务之间的关系和作用，为科学知识与政策实践的有效连接提供决策支持。

参考文献

PROCTOR J D.

The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1998, 88: 352-376.

DOI:10.1111/0004-5608.00105      URL     [本文引用: 1]

郑华, 欧阳志云, 赵同谦, 等.

人类活动对生态系统服务功能的影响

自然资源学报, 2003, 18(1): 118-126.

[本文引用: 1]

[ZHENG H, OUYANG Z Y, ZHAO T Q, et al.

The impact of human activities on ecosystem services

Journal of Natural Resources, 2003, 18(1): 118-126.]

DOI:10.11849/zrzyxb.2003.01.018      [本文引用: 1]

Ecosystem services are the foundation of man's sustainable development.But when human take advantages of many kinds of ecosystem services in providing natural resources and living environment,they also affected ecosystem services intensively.Although a part of human activities are helpful to stabilize and improve ecosystem services,more of them result in a series of eco-environmental crises and disasters that endanger man's survival and development.The damage of ecosystem services due to anthropogenic effects and its consequence are increasingly becoming outstanding problems in the world.The impact of human activities on ecosystem ser-vices has received much attention of human society at present.It is urgent to make clear the de-gree and ecological mechanism that human activities impact ecosystem services.The patterns and mechanisms and changing trend of ecosystem services affected by human activities were ex-plored in this paper.The impacts of human activities on ecosystem services include negative effects and positive effects.The former weaken ecosystem services through changing habitat and changing ecosystem structure and changing biogeochemical cycle.The main patterns include land reclamation,ur-banization,industrialization,grazing,hunting,international trade,agriculture and so on.The lat-ter play a significant role in improving eco-environment condition.The study of these passive factors,such as ecosystem management,ecological engineering,ecological restoration and reha-bilitation,ecological planning and evaluation,is also undertaking in a more and more deep-going way and has become the hot spot of ecological research.Although many researchers have carried out substantial studies on the impact of human ac-tivities on ecosystem services,much work still need to be conducted in the formation mechanism of ecosystem services,the threshold of ecosystems in bearing the human interference and the simulation and predication of human impacting ecosystem services.These problems were posed in this paper.

MENZEL S, TENG J.

Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science

Conservation Biology, 2010, 24: 907-909.

DOI:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x      PMID:19843122      [本文引用: 1]

ANTON C, YOUNG J, HARRISON P, et al.

Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

Biodiversity and Conservation, 2010, 19: 2979-2994.

DOI:10.1007/s10531-010-9853-6      URL     [本文引用: 1]

CHAN K M A, GUERRY A D, BALVANERA P, et al.

Social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement

Bioscience, 2012, 62: 744-756.

DOI:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7      URL     [本文引用: 1]

RAMOS A, JUJNOVSKY J, ALMEIDA-LENERO L.

The relevance of stakeholders' perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico city

Ecosystem Services, 2018, 26: 85-95.

[本文引用: 1]

MARK S R.

Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review

Biological Conservation, 2008, 141(10): 2417-2431.

DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014      URL     [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.

DOI:10.11821/dlxb201706002      [本文引用: 1]

作为沟通自然生态系统与人类社会的重要桥梁,生态系统服务一直以来都是地理学、生态学等学科的研究前沿和热点。正确认知生态系统服务之间的关系,是开展多种生态系统服务可持续管理决策的前提,有助于人类福祉的全面提升。本文通过厘定生态系统服务权衡的概念内涵,梳理了生态系统服务权衡的空间、时间和可逆性特征,将多层次人类福祉的满足作为权衡的最终目标,视生态补偿为权衡决策的基本保障途径。生态系统服务权衡关系的识别依托于定量指标法和综合模型法,且权衡关系可能随时空尺度的推移发生改变;情景分析与多目标分析是生态系统服务权衡决策的有效手段。生态系统服务权衡多尺度关联、生态系统服务流与远程耦合、生态系统服务消费与生态补偿,成为当前生态系统服务权衡研究的重点方向。

[PENG J, HU X X, ZHAO M Y, et al.

Research progress on ecosystem services trade-offs: From cognition to decision making

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(6): 960-973.]

[本文引用: 1]

赵文武, 刘月, 冯强, 等.

人地系统耦合框架下的生态系统服务

地理科学进展, 2018, 37(1): 139-151.

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.01.015      [本文引用: 2]

生态系统服务是连接自然环境与人类福祉的桥梁,是人地系统耦合研究的核心内容。本文在构建生态系统服务与人地系统耦合研究框架的基础上,系统梳理了生态系统服务评估、生态系统服务权衡、生态系统服务影响因素、生态系统服务供给流动与需求等研究前沿,提出了未来生态系统服务研究的重点领域。主要研究结论认为：①国际生态系统服务模型发展迅速,SAORES模型是中国生态系统服务模型优化与参数本地化的突出代表;②生态系统服务权衡具有相对复杂的时空尺度,权衡分析的前提是辨析不同尺度生态系统结构—过程—功能—服务的作用机制;③自然因素是生态系统服务时空分布的基础,土地利用能改变生态系统结构、功能与生态系统服务变化,社会经济因素会导致生态系统服务权衡的差异;④为明晰生态系统服务供给与需求耦合关系,需进一步识别生态系统服务流的运移路径;⑤未来生态系统服务研究需加强生态系统服务对全球变化的响应特征和机制分析、面向可持续发展目标的生态系统服务供给流动与需求研究、生态系统服务的动态评价集成与优化、生态系统服务与人地系统耦合、生态系统服务与大数据集成等。

[ZHAO W W, LIU Y, FENG Q, et al.

Ecosystem services for coupled human and environment systems

Progress in Geography, 2018, 37(1): 139-151.]

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.01.015      [本文引用: 2]

Ecosystem services bridge the natural environment and human well-being, and are the key content of coupled human-environment system research. This article puts forward a framework of research on ecosystem services for coupled human-environment systems, and systematically reviews the research hotspots of ecosystem services evaluation, ecosystem services trade-offs, ecosystem services driving factors, ecosystem supply-flow-demand, and identifies the key areas for future ecosystem services research. This article argues that: (1) international research on ecosystem services models have experienced a rapid development, and SAORES model is the outstanding representative of ecosystem service evaluation model in China; (2) ecosystem service trade-off analyses are relatively complex, and its mechanism depends on distinguish the relationships among ecosystem structure-process-function-service at multiple spatial and temporal scales; (3) natural factors are the basis of ecosystem services distribution, land use change can modify ecosystem structure, function, and services, and social and economic factors can lead to differences in ecosystem services trade-off and demand; (4) in order to clarify the coupling relationship between ecosystem service supply and demand, it is urgently needed to further identify the pathes of ecosystem service flowes; (5) future research of ecosystem services should include strengthening the analyses on the response of ecosystem services to global change, ecosystem services supply and demand flow focusing on the sustainable development aspect, integration and optimization of the dynamic evaluation of ecosystem services, the coupling of ecosystem services and human-environment systems, and the integration of ecosystem services and big data.

UNAI P, PATRICIA B, SANDRA D, et al.

Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2017, 26-27: 7-16.

[本文引用: 1]

侯鹏, 王桥, 申文明, 等.

生态系统综合评估研究进展: 内涵, 框架与挑战

地理研究, 2015, 34(10): 1809-1823.

DOI:10.11821/dlyj201510001      [本文引用: 1]

自然生态系统中的所有生物和非生物都具有双重属性,既是生态系统不可或缺的组成部分,也是人类社会可持续发展的基础资源。客观准确地评估生态系统状况,不仅是生态系统生态学所面临的一个科学问题,更是人类可持续发展所面临的一个生态系统综合管理问题。如何客观全面地评估生态系统现状、变化和趋势,是生态学领域研究的热点和难点之一,成为关系着人类社会可持续发展的关键性命题之一。根据当前国内外研究主要成果,从生态系统综合评估的概念和内涵、框架模式和主要内容、发展趋势和挑战等三个方面,梳理和分析了生态系统综合评估的研究进展。基于“社会—经济—自然”复合生态系统角度和社会与生态系统的互动过程,综述了生态系统管理、生态系统服务、生态资产等概念和内涵,讨论和梳理了三者之间的关系。对相关国际组织和政府实施的全球、区域、国家等不同尺度的生态系统综合评估,分析归纳为“生态压力—政策响应”、“生态系统服务—人类福祉”、“服务价值—自然益惠”、“综合状况—变化趋势”等四种评估框架模式。但是,面对多元、综合、复杂、开放的生态系统,基于生态系统与人类社会交互关系的评估框架及相关理论研究、生态系统综合评估指标和方法体系构建、观测技术方法集成和数据同化、时空尺度选择和确定的协同等科学问题,将会成为今后生态系统综合评估发展趋势和挑战。

[HOU P, WANG Q, SHEN W M, et al.

Progress of integrated ecosystem assessment: Concept, framework and challenges

Geographical Research, 2015, 34(10): 1809-1823.]

DOI:10.11821/dlyj201510001      [本文引用: 1]

All biological and abiotic have dual attributes in the natural ecosystems. They are the integral part of ecosystem, and basic resources for the sustainable development of the human society. Objective and accurate assessment of ecosystem, not just a scientific question of ecosystem ecology, is also a management issue of the sustainable development of the human society. To objectively find and understand change features of ecosystem by comprehensive assessment is a popular and difficult topic in ecological research field, and is one of the key propositions of sustainable development of human society. Integrated ecosystem assessment is to better serve the integrated ecosystem management and enhance the ecological system of human society support ability. In this processing and behavior, the ecosystem and its service ability for human society are analyzed, and their statuses and changes are found and understood. There are many core contents in the integrated ecosystem assessment, such as the ecosystem management, ecosystem services, ecological assets. Facing the multiple, comprehensive and open ecosystem, some countries and international organizations have carried out many explorations and practices of integrated ecosystem assessment, and put forward various evaluation frameworks. There are still many problems and challenges. This paper examines the progress of ecosystem assessment, including the concept, framework model and main content, development trends and challenges. Based on the complex “social-economic-natural” ecosystems, interactive process of society and ecosystem, concept and content of ecosystem management, ecosystem services, ecological assets and their relationship are discussed. According to the practices and cases of integrated ecological system assessment, which include lots of assessment in global, regional, and national scales, four integrated assessment framework models are summed up. They are "ecological pressure-policy responses","ecological services-human well-being", "natural benefits-ecology management", "comprehensive status-change trends". However, as ecosystems are diverse, integrated, complex, and open, lots of scientific questions should be paid more attention in the future, including integrated assessment framework and its relevant theoretical basis, indicators and methods of ecosystem assessment, observation technology integration and data assimilation methods, temporal and spatial scales.

赵雪雁.

不同生计方式农户的环境感知: 以甘南高原为例

生态学报, 2012, 32(21): 6776-6787.

[本文引用: 1]

[ZHAO X Y.

Environmental perception of farmers of different livelihood strategies: A case of Gannan Plateau

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(21): 6776-6787.]

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

JERICO-DAMINELLO C, SCHROTER B, MANCILLA G M, et al.

Exploring perceptions of stakeholder roles in ecosystem services coproduction

Ecosystem Services, 2021, 51: 101353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353      URL     [本文引用: 1]

PINGARRONI A, CASTRO A J, GAMBI M, et al.

Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions

Ecosystem Services, 2022, 56: 101436, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101436.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101436      URL     [本文引用: 1]

SHERROUSE B C, CLEMENT J M, SEMMENS D J.

A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services

Applied Geography, 2011, 31: 748-760.

DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002      URL     [本文引用: 1]

GARCIA-LLORENTE M, CASTRO A, QUINTAS-SORIANO C, et al.

Local perceptions of ecosystem services across multiple ecosystem types in Spain

Land, 2020, 9(9): 330, Doi: 10.3390/land9090330.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Combining socio-cultural valuations of ecosystem services with ecological and monetary assessments is critical to informing decision making with an integrative and multi-pronged approach. This study examined differences in the perceptions of ecosystem service supply and diversity across eight major ecosystem types in Spain and scrutinized the social and ecological factors shaping these perceptions. First, we implemented 1932 face-to-face questionnaires among local inhabitants to assess perceptions of ecosystem service supply. Second, we created an ecosystem service diversity index to measure the perceived diversity of services considering agroecosystems, Mediterranean mountains, arid systems, two aquatic continental systems, coastal ecosystems and two urban ecosystems. Finally, we examined the influence of biophysical, socio-demographic and institutional factors in shaping ecosystem service perceptions. Overall, cultural services were the most widely perceived, followed by provisioning and regulating services. Provisioning services were most strongly associated with agroecosystems, mountains and coastal systems, whereas cultural services were associated with urban ecosystems and regulating services were specifically linked with agroecosystems, mountains and urban recreational areas. The highest service diversity index values corresponded to agroecosystems, mountains and wetlands. Our results also showed that socio-demographic factors, such as place of origin (urban vs. rural) and educational level, as well as institutional factors, such as management and access regimes, shaped the perception of ecosystem services.

QUINTAS-SORIANO C, BRANDT J, RUNNING K, et al.

Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: A Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) analysis

Ecology and Society, 2018, 23(3): 3, Doi: 10.5751/es-10226-230303.

[本文引用: 1]

周昱辰, 尹丹, 黄庆旭, 等.

基于生态系统服务参与式制图的“三生”空间优化建议: 以白洋淀流域为例

自然资源学报, 2022, 37(8): 1988-2003.

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20220805      [本文引用: 1]

在快速城市化流域,生产、生态和生活空间的布局深刻影响着流域的生态系统服务和居民福祉。但是,已有的空间布局研究大多未考虑生态系统服务在提升不同类型人群福祉中的作用,尤其缺乏对弱势群体福祉的关注。因此,以典型城市化流域——白洋淀流域为例,选择典型生态系统服务指标识别生活、生产和生态空间的高值重合地区,使用参与式制图方法将多种人群的福祉需求纳入主导功能识别中。结果发现：空间上重合的高值区总面积约占流域总面积的14.5%,主要为生产—生态功能重合区。不同利益群体对重合高值区主导功能的研判不同。一方面,城市居民比农村居民更加注重文化服务,前者提及文化服务的次数占比是后者的2倍;另一方面,政府决策者更多关注流域上游的生态功能,扶贫工作人员则更关注山区林地的生产功能。本文探索了将多种利益主体的偏好纳入区域空间布局优化的方法,可为流域“三生空间”和国土空间规划布局优化提供新的思路。

[ZHOU Y C, YIN D, HUANG Q X, et al.

Spatial optimization based on ecosystem services and the participatory mapping: A case study in Baiyangdian Watershed

Journal of Natural Resources, 2022, 37(8): 1988-2003.]

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20220805      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Media release: IPBES values assessment: Decisions based on narrow set of market values of nature underpin the global biodiversity crisis, https://ipbes.net/media_release/Values_Assessment_Published, 2022-07-11.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

贾生华, 陈宏辉.

利益相关者的界定方法述评

外国经济与管理, 2002, 24(5): 13-18.

[本文引用: 1]

[JIA S H, CHEN H H.

A review on the definition of stakeholders

Foreign Economies and Management, 2002, 24(5): 13-18.]

[本文引用: 1]

GRIMBLE R, WELLARD K.

Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities

Agricultural Systems, 1997, 55(2): 173-193.

DOI:10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1      URL     [本文引用: 2]

REED M S.

Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review

Biological Conservation, 2008, 141(10): 2417-2431.

DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014      URL     [本文引用: 1]

REED M, GRAVES A, DANDY N, et al.

Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management

Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90: 1933-1949.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001      PMID:19231064      [本文引用: 1]

Stakeholder analysis means many things to different people. Various methods and approaches have been developed in different fields for different purposes, leading to confusion over the concept and practice of stakeholder analysis. This paper asks how and why stakeholder analysis should be conducted for participatory natural resource management research. This is achieved by reviewing the development of stakeholder analysis in business management, development and natural resource management. The normative and instrumental theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis is discussed, and a stakeholder analysis typology is proposed. This consists of methods for: i) identifying stakeholders; ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders; and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders. The range of methods that can be used to carry out each type of analysis is reviewed. These methods and approaches are then illustrated through a series of case studies funded through the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. These case studies show the wide range of participatory and non-participatory methods that can be used, and discuss some of the challenges and limitations of existing methods for stakeholder analysis. The case studies also propose new tools and combinations of methods that can more effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships.

SAGIE H, ORENSTEIN D E. Benefits of stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel. Ecosystem Services, 2022, 53: 101404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101404.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

RAUM S.

A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK.

Ecosystem Services, 2018, 29: 170-184.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001      URL     [本文引用: 1]

FREEMAN R E. Strategic Management:A Stakeholder Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

[本文引用: 1]

FRIEDMAN A, MILES S. Stakeholders:Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

[本文引用: 1]

段义孚. 恋地情节. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2018: 5.

[本文引用: 1]

[DUAN Y F. Topophilia: Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Beijing: Commercial Press, 2018: 5.]

[本文引用: 1]

中国大百科全书总编辑委员会《心理学》编辑委员会普通心理学编写组编. 中国大百科全书·心理学:普通心理学. 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社, 1987: 13.

[本文引用: 1]

[Editorial Group of General Psychology, Editorial Committee of Psychology, General Editorial Committee of Encyclopedia of China. Encyclopedia of China·Psychology:General Psychology. Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, 1987: 13.]

[本文引用: 1]

方俊明. 认知心理学与人格教育. 西安: 陕西师范大学出版社, 1990: 64.

[本文引用: 1]

[FANG J M. Cognitive Psychology and Personality Education. Xi'an: Shaanxi Normal University Press, 1990: 64.]

[本文引用: 1]

约翰·R·安德森. 认知心理学及其启示. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2012: 15.

[本文引用: 1]

[JOHN R A. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. Beijing: Posts and Telecom Press, 2012: 15.]

[本文引用: 1]

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

资源科学, 2010, 32(4): 776-781.

[本文引用: 1]

湿地生态系统具有强大的功能，是人类生存和社会经济发展的基础。不同利益相关者对湿地生态系统服务的认知不同，农户对于生态系统服务的认知、影响因子和原因缺少系统的了解和分析。本文采用调查问卷，对湖区3个县12个村的310户农户的基本信息、农业生产、渔业捕捞、湿地保护和生物多样性作深入了解，重点调查鄱阳湖区湿地生物多样性、调节气候、水质净化和水产品等服务，并利用SPSS进行二元logit分析。研究结果表明：①鄱阳湖区农户对湿地生态系统服务认知最充分的是调节气候、生物多样性和水产品；②不同调查区的农户，对在旅游休闲、纤维和燃料、水产品和植物产品等生态系统服务重要性的认知存在差异；③性别、年龄、职业和总收入是影响农户对生态系统服务认知的主要因素。

[HE J, SHU X B, YU X B.

Surveys and analysis of farmers' perception about wetland ecosystem services in Poyang Lake

Resources Science, 2010, 32(4): 776-781.]

[本文引用: 1]

高虹, 欧阳志云, 郑华, 等.

居民对文化林生态系统服务功能的认知与态度

生态学报, 2013, 33(3): 756-763.

[本文引用: 1]

[GAO H, OUYANG Z Y, ZHENG H, et al.

Perception and attitudes of local people concerning ecosystem services of culturally protected forests

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(3): 756-763.]

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

PROPPER M, HAUPTS F.

The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation

Ecological Economics, 2014, 108: 28-35.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.023      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being:A Framework for Assessment

Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

[本文引用: 2]

董连耕, 朱文博, 高阳, 等.

生态系统文化服务研究进展

北京大学学报: 自然科学版, 2014, 50(6): 1155-1162.

[本文引用: 1]

[DONG L G, ZHU W B, GAO Y, et al.

Research progress in Culture Ecosystem Services (CES) and its development trend

Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2014, 50(6): 1155-1162.]

[本文引用: 1]

路云静, 唐海萍.

生态系统文化服务研究进展: 基于CiteSpace的可视化分析

北京师范大学学报: 自然科学版, 2021, 57(4): 524-532.

[本文引用: 1]

[LU Y J, TANG H P.

Research progress in cultural ecosystem services

Journal of Beijing Normal University: Natural Science, 2021, 57(4): 524-532.]

[本文引用: 1]

NIE X, WANG Q, WU J, et al.

Effectively enhancing perceptions of cultural ecosystem services: A case study of a karst cultural ecosystem

Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 315: 115189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115189.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115189      URL     [本文引用: 1]

DOU Y H, ZHEN L, XU X B, et al.

Assessing the influences of ecological restoration on perceptions of cultural ecosystem services by residents of agricultural landscapes of Western China

Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 646: 685-695.

DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.205      URL     [本文引用: 1]

BREYNE J, DUFRENE M, MARECHAL K.

How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators

Ecosystem Services, 2021, 49: 101278, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101278.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

FORGEARD M J C, JAYAWICKREME E, KERN M L, et al.

Doing the right thing: Measuring well-being for public policy

International Journal of Wellbeing, 2011, 1(1): 79-106.

[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: 2]

[FENG W L, LI S Z, LI C.

Overview and frame work for ecosystem services and human well-being

Resources Science, 2013, 35(7): 1482-1489.]

[本文引用: 2]

BUIJS A E.

Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains

Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90(8): 2680-2689.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.02.006      PMID:19303194      [本文引用: 1]

In many European countries, accommodating water has become the dominant paradigm in river management. In the Netherlands, extensive river restoration projects are being implemented, many of which draw serious opposition from the public. To investigate the causes of such opposition, a comprehensive study of public attitudes towards river restoration was conducted in three floodplains, both before and after river restoration. The study combined quantitative questionnaires (N=562) with open interviews (N=29). This paper describes how local residents perceive the effects of river restoration on landscape quality and how residents and protest groups use landscape quality in combination with other arguments to strategically frame river management policies. Results show that measurement of the perceived outcomes of nature restoration needs to be complemented by a more dynamic type of research, focusing on the social processes of the framing of restoration plans. Theoretically, the paper aims to contribute to the development of a rigorous research strategy to study framing processes in environmental management, using a mixed-methods approach. In general, local residents are supportive of river restoration projects. Although restoration may diminish feelings of attachment to an area, for most people this negative effect is compensated by the positive effects on scenic beauty and perceived protection from flooding. However, these positive effects may become contested because of the active framing of river restoration by protest groups. Residents use three distinct frames to give meaning to river restoration projects: (i) an attachment frame, focusing on cultural heritage and place attachment (ii) an attractive nature frame, focusing on nature as attractive living space and the intrinsic value of nature (iii) a rurality frame, focusing on rural values, agriculture and cultural heritage. Resistance to river restoration plans stems from the attachment and rurality frames. People using these frames challenge safety arguments for river restoration and highlight potential threats to sense of place and to agriculture. In the areas surveyed, the project initiator's focus on biodiversity and safety did not resonate very well among the local community, because of their diverging views on nature. Practical implications of the study include the need to incorporate public perception into river restoration projects and the potential for project initiators to form strategic alliances with local residents to promote ecological restoration in combination with river restoration.

FENG Q, MIAO Z, LI Z X, et al.

Public perception of an ecological rehabilitation project in inland river basins in Northern China: Success or failure

Environmental Research, 2015, 139: 20-30.

DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.030      PMID:25686489      [本文引用: 1]

The need for environmental protection challenges societies to deal with difficult problems because strategies designed by scientists to protect the environment often create negative effects on impoverished local residents. We investigated the effects of China's national and regional policies related to environmental protection and rehabilitation projects in inland river basins, by studying the effect of projects in the Heihe and Shiyang river basins, in northwest China. Interviews and surveys were conducted at 30 sites in the lower reaches of these two arid basins, an area that has experienced severe ecological degradation. The survey results show the ecological rehabilitation projects adversely affected the livelihoods of 70.35% of foresters, 64.89% of farmers and 62.24% of herders in the Minqing region in the lower Shiyang River Basin; also, the projects negatively affected 51.9% of residents in the Ejin Qi in the lower Heihe River Basin. This caused 16.33% of foresters, 39.90% of farmers and 45.32% of herders in the Minqing region to not support the project and 37.5% of residents in the Ejin Qi region said they will deforest and graze again after the project ends. The negative impacts of the policies connected to the projects cause these attitudes. The projects prohibit felling and grazing and require residents to give up groundwater mining; this results in a great amount of uncompensated economic loss to them. Extensive survey data document the concerns of local residents, concerns that are supported by the calculation of actual incomes. In addition, the surveys results show poorer interviewees believe the projects greatly affected their livelihoods. While citizens in this region support environment protection work, the poor require considerable assistance if one expects them to support this type of work. Governmental assistance can greatly improve their living conditions, and hence encourage them to participate in and support the implementation of the projects within and outside the districts where they live. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ULRIKA Å E, TAPSELL S.

Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013, 113: 94-103.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009      URL     [本文引用: 1]

EMMA L W, BEN W J S, LIZ S, et al.

Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration

Journal of Hydrology, 2014, 519: 2613-2623.

DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.029      URL     [本文引用: 1]

SEPPELT R, DORMANN C F, EPPINK F V, et al.

A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead

Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 48: 630-636.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x      URL     [本文引用: 1]

PIERRE S, REMI M, CHARLENE K, et al.

Guidance for stakeholder consultation to support national ecosystem services assessment: A case study from French marine assessment

Ecosystem Services, 2022, 54: 101408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101408.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101408      URL     [本文引用: 1]

CABRAL P, CAMPOS F S, DAVID J, et al.

Disentangling ecosystem services perception by stakeholders: An integrative assessment based on land cover

Ecological Indicators, 2021, 126: 107660, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107660.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

EMMA M, JORDI F, PAGES, et al.

Nicola beaumont, ecosystem services: A bridge or barrier for UK marine stakeholders?

Ecosystem Services, 2019, 37: 100922, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100922.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

BEA M, YVONNE F, SARA M K, et al.

Divergent farmer and scientist perceptions of agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services and decision-making

Biological Conservation, 2021, 256: 109065, Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109065.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

STOSCH K C, QUILLIAM R S, BUNNEFELD N, et al.

Quantifying stakeholder understanding of an ecosystem service trade-off

Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 651: 2524-2534.

DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.090      [本文引用: 1]

Sustainable management of global natural resources is challenged by social and environmental drivers, adding pressure to ecosystem service provision in many regions of the world where there are competing demands on environmental resources. Understanding trade-offs between ecosystem services and how they are valued by different stakeholder groups is therefore critical to maximise benefits and avoid conflict between competing uses. In this study we developed a novel participatory trade-off experiment to elicit the perception of 43 participants, from across four key stakeholder groups, working in land and water management (Environmental Regulators, Farming Advisors, Water Industry Staff and Catchment Scientists). Using the Production Possibility Frontier (PPF) concept, we quantified stakeholder assessment of both the shape and the uncertainty around the PPF in a trade-off between agricultural intensity and the ecological health of freshwater systems. The majority of stakeholder groups selected threshold and logistic decay trade-off curves to describe the relationship of the trade-off, and estimated the uncertainty around the curves to be intermediate or large. The views of the four stakeholder groups differed significantly regarding how they estimated stakeholder trade-off prioritisation; the largest difference in perspectives was identified between Environmental Regulators and Farm Advisors. The methodology considered the cultural, socio-economic and institutional specificities of an ecosystem service interaction and identified potential sources of conflict but also possible solutions for win-win opportunities to explore and share understanding between stakeholders. Valuing stakeholder knowledge as a form of expert data and integrating this into participatory decision-making processes for land and water management thus contributes considerable value beyond traditional approaches to ecosystem service assessments. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V.

QUINTAS-SORIANO C, GARCIA-LLORENTE M, NORSTROM A, et al.

Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes

Landscape Ecology, 2019, 34: 1619-1633.

DOI:10.1007/s10980-019-00826-7      [本文引用: 2]

JERIC-DAMINELLO C, SCHRTER B, GARCIA M M, et al.

Exploring perceptions of stakeholder roles in ecosystem services coproduction

Ecosystem Services, 2021, 51: 101353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353      URL     [本文引用: 1]

KARIMI A, JONES K.

Assessing national human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation in Iran

AMBIO, 2020, 49: 1506-1518.

DOI:10.1007/s13280-019-01305-8      [本文引用: 1]

MARA D R, ALEJANDRA A, CECILIA A S, et al.

Linking farmers' management decision, demographic characteristics and perceptions of ecosystem services in the Southern Pampa of Argentina

Journal of Rural Studies, 2020, 76: 202-212.

DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.002      URL     [本文引用: 1]

王晓琪, 赵雪雁, 王蓉, 等.

重点生态功能区农户对生态系统服务的感知: 以甘南高原为例

生态学报, 2020, 40(9): 2838-2850.

[本文引用: 2]

[WANG X Q, ZHAO X Y, WANG R, et al.

Farmers' perception of ecosystem services in the key ecological functional areas: A case of the Gannan Plateau

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(9): 2838-2850.]

[本文引用: 2]

罗琦, 甄霖, 杨婉妮, 等.

生态治理工程对锡林郭勒草地生态系统文化服务感知的影响研究

自然资源学报, 2020, 35(1): 119-129.

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200111      [本文引用: 1]

锡林郭勒近年来草地退化趋势严重,一系列生态治理工程陆续开展。基于问卷调查法,探究草地文化服务牧户感知情况及其影响因素,对比分析不同治理工程区牧户对草地文化服务感知的差异。结果表明：（1）牧户对草地文化服务的感知受其民族、年龄、文化水平的影响（P<0.05）。蒙古族对生理和精神健康、美学价值的感知高于汉族;年龄较高的群体对生理及精神健康服务、教育及研究价值感知较高,对休闲娱乐的感知较低;高文化水平群体对教育及研究价值感知较高。（2）生态工程影响草地文化服务的牧户感知,“草畜平衡+休牧+禁牧”区牧户对草地多项文化服务（生理及精神健康、灵感、精神及宗教信仰、地方感、休闲娱乐）的感知低于其他治理工程区。

[LUO Q, ZHEN L, YANG W N, et al.

The influence of ecological restoration projects on cultural ecosystem services in the Xilin Gol Grassland

Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(1): 119-129.]

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200111      [本文引用: 1]

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are important parts of ecosystem services and are receiving increasing attention. As the ecological barriers in the northern China, Xilin Gol League has witnessed more serious degradation in recent years. A large number of ecological restoration projects (ERPs) have been carried out in Xilin Gol, among which, grazing prohibition, rest grazing, grass-animal balance are the most representative ones. In this study, we used the questionnaire survey method to investigate the perceptions of 144 respondents in Xilin Gol on the CES of grassland ecosystem, and analyzed the factors influencing these perceptions. In addition, we compared the CES of grassland in three ERPs areas ("rest grazing", "rest grazing +grass-animal balance", "rest grazing + grass-animal balance + grazing prohibition"). The results showed that: (1) Respondent's perception of grassland's CES was affected by their ethnicity, age and education level (P<0.05), the perception of Mongolian people on mental and physical health, and the aesthetic services is higher than that of Han ethnic groups; the older group has higher perception than the younger one on mental and physical health, education and science, and low perception on recreational services; the group with high education level has higher perception on education and science services. (2) ERPs affected the CES of grassland, several grassland's CES (mental and physical health, inspiration, spiritual and religious services, sense of place, recreational services) in "rest grazing + grass-animal balance + grazing prohibition" region is lower than that of the other two areas.

LEARY J, GRIMM K, ASLAN C, et al.

Landowners' socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services provided by trees in Costa Rican agricultural landscapes

Environmental Management, 2021, 67: 974-987.

DOI:10.1007/s00267-021-01442-5      PMID:33661346      [本文引用: 1]

Over one-fourth of the world's land area is dedicated to agriculture, and these lands provide important ecosystem services (ES). Trees are a key component of agricultural ecosystems' ability to provide ES, especially in tropical regions. Agricultural landowners' evaluation of the ES provided by trees influences management decisions, impacting tree cover at large scales. Using a case study approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with four types of agricultural landowners in southern Costa Rica to better understand how they value ES provided by trees. We used a socio-cultural valuation method, which revealed that landowners highly valued regulating and provisioning ES provided by trees and that the number and type of ES identified was influenced by the principle economic activity. Those farmers with larger amounts of forests on their properties more often identified cultural ES. The socio-cultural valuation methods revealed that respondents valued trees as wildlife habitat, coupling supporting and cultural services with both material (e.g., tourism) and non-material benefits (e.g., beauty). Few farmers in the study benefited from payment for ecosystem services programs, but the high value farmers placed on trees indicates there are other opportunities to increase tree cover on farms, such as promotion of live fencing and expanded riparian corridors. Results from this work can help improve conservation outcomes by shifting the focus of ecosystem service valuation to the needs and concerns of small-scale farmers in the development of outreach programs, management plans, and policies aimed at increasing tree cover on private lands in agricultural landscapes.

COHEN-SHACHAM E, DAYAN T, GROOT R D, et al.

Using the ecosystem services concept to analyse stakeholder involvement in wetland management

Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2015, 23(2): 241-256.

DOI:10.1007/s11273-014-9375-1      URL     [本文引用: 2]

LOPES R, VIDEIRA N.

How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the particular ES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal

Ecosystem Services, 2019, 38: 100955, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100955.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100955      URL     [本文引用: 1]

SCHOLTE S S K, VAN TEEFFELEN A J A, VERBURG P H.

Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods

Ecological Economics, 2015, 114: 67-78.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007      URL     [本文引用: 1]

OSTWALD M, JONSSON A, WIBECK V, et al.

Mapping energy crop cultivation and identifying motivational factors among Swedish farmers

Biomass and Bioenergy, 2013, 50: 25-34.

DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.058      URL     [本文引用: 1]

ZHAI X, LANGE E.

Using social media to explore perceptions of ecosystem services by nature-based solution projects

Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 2020, 8(3): 58-77.

DOI:10.15302/J-LAF-1-020030      [本文引用: 1]

Natural wetlands play a vital role in maintaining regional water balance, regulating regional climate, and maintaining biodiversity. Due to urban sprawl in China, the loss of natural wetlands has been dramatic. In recent years, nature-based solutions, including wetland parks, have been advocated to compensate for this loss and to reduce vulnerability and disaster risks. As a result, inspired by natural wetlands or building on existing wetland ecosystems, hundreds of wetland parks have been created in China over the last decade. Most research on ecosystem services of wetland parks has to date focused on technical perspectives, with only a few addressing public perception; the public’s perception of wetland parks is not well understood. This research used social media (i.e. Sina Weibo) to access large volumes of data and provide temporal and geographic granularity. A semantic analysis of microblogs was performed to understand how the public perceives the ecosystem services of wetland parks in Guangzhou. This study explored the public’s perceptions and compared these with the ecosystem services as communicated by professional institutions, and probed into the factors that affect these perceptions. The results showed that the top three ecosystem services perceived by both the general public and communicated by institutions are recreation, aesthetics, and refugia / habitat. There is a strong interconnection between the perceptions of recreation and aesthetics services. Flowering plant species and colored-leaf trees are the most important stimuli affecting perceptions of aesthetics services, and birds are key to the perception of refugia / habitat services. These results provide a basis for better aligning management of projects utilizing naturebased solutions, such as wetland parks, with expectations from the public.

TENGBERG A, FREDHOLM S, ELIASSON I, et al.

Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity

Ecosystem Services, 2012, 2: 14-26.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006      URL     [本文引用: 1]

SMITH H F, SULLIVAN C A.

Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes-farmers' perceptions

Ecological Economics, 2014, 98: 72-80.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008      URL     [本文引用: 1]

CASADO-ARZUAGA I, MADARIAGA I, ONAINDIA M.

Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt

Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, 129: 33-43.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059      URL     [本文引用: 1]

KELEMEN E, NGUYEN G, GOMIERO T, et al.

Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study

Land Use Policy, 2013, 35: 318-328.

DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005      URL     [本文引用: 1]

BROWN G, FAGERHOLM N.

Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation

Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 119-133.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007      URL     [本文引用: 1]

吴莞姝, 党煜婷, 赵凯.

基于多维感知的城市活力空间特征研究

地球信息科学学报, 2022, 24(10): 1867-1882.

DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210714      [本文引用: 1]

基于多维感知对城市活力进行综合评价并探索其用地特征,是提升城市智慧化水平、实现精准规划和有机更新的重要基础。本研究以厦门岛为例,基于社交媒体签到数据、夜间灯光影像数据、POI数据和LBS大数据,从社会、经济、文化和空间4个维度感知城市活力,使用核密度、数据网格化和最优聚类法,分析城市活力的空间特征,并探讨不同活力区域的土地利用结构、功能多样性和开发强度等用地特征。研究发现：① 基于多源数据的城市活力多维感知方法可精准、有效评估城市空间特征和发展动态;② 厦门岛社会、经济、文化和空间维度城市活力的空间分布存在一定差异,4类活力区域呈现出西部连绵成带、东部围绕商务区和大型设施集中的特征;③ 各类活力区域的用地特征存在较大差异。第一类区域的公共管理与公共服务用地占比和第二类区域的商业服务业用地占比最高,均接近20%。集聚可显著提升城市活力,建设用地周边1000 m范围内的功能混合度更为重要。居住和商业服务业设施用地的活力水平随着开发强度的降低而降低,高值区容积率均在2.0以上。

[WU W S, DANG Y T, ZHAO K.

Spatial characteristics of urban vitality based on multi-dimensional perception

Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2022, 24(10): 1867-1882. ]

[本文引用: 1]

INIESTA-ARANDIA I, GARCIA-LLORENTE M, AGUILERA P A, et al.

Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being

Ecological Economics, 2014, 108: 36-48.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028      URL     [本文引用: 1]

MARTIN-LOPEZ B, INIESTA-ARANDIA I, GARCIA-LLORENTE M, et al.

Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences

PloS One, 2012, 7(6): 38970, Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.

[本文引用: 2]

YANG S Q, ZHAO W W, PEREIRA P, et al.

Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in Yanhe watershed of China

Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 251: 109615, Doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109615.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

KARIMI A, JONES K.

Assessing national human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation in Iran

Ambio, 2020, 49: 1506-1518.

DOI:10.1007/s13280-019-01305-8      [本文引用: 1]

RODRIGUEZ-MORALESA B, ROCES-DIAZ J, KELEMEN E, et al.

Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowner's and visitor's perspectives dissimilar

?. Ecosystem Services, 2020, 43: 101089, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101089.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

赵琪琪, 李晶, 刘婧雅, 等.

基于SolVES模型的关中: 天水经济区生态系统文化服务评估

生态学报, 2018, 38(10): 3673-3681.

[本文引用: 1]

[ZHAO Q Q, LI J, LIU J Y, et al.

Assessment and analysis of social values of cultural ecosystem services based on the SolVES model in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(10): 3673-3681.]

[本文引用: 1]

THOMAS D R.

A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data

American Journal of Evaluation. 2006, 27: 237-246.

DOI:10.1177/1098214005283748      URL     [本文引用: 1]

A general inductive approach for analysis of qualitative evaluation data is described. The purposes for using an inductive approach are to (a) condense raw textual data into a brief, summary format; (b) establish clear links between the evaluation or research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw data; and (c) develop a framework of the underlying structure of experiences or processes that are evident in the raw data. The general inductive approach provides an easily used and systematic set of procedures for analyzing qualitative data that can produce reliable and valid findings. Although the general inductive approach is not as strong as some other analytic strategies for theory or model development, it does provide a simple, straightforward approach for deriving findings in the context of focused evaluation questions. Many evaluators are likely to find using a general inductive approach less complicated than using other approaches to qualitative data analysis.

BROWN G, ALESSA L.

A GIS-based inductive study of wilderness values

International Journal of Wilderness, 2005, 11(1): 14-18.

[本文引用: 1]

VIHERVAARA P, MARJOKORPI A, KUMPULA T, et al.

Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: A case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay

Forest Policy and Economics, 2012, 14(1): 58-68.

DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.008      URL     [本文引用: 1]

VAN ZANTEN B T, VERBURG P H, KOETSE M J, et al.

Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, 132: 89-101.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012      URL     [本文引用: 1]

SERNA-CHAVEZ H M, SCHULP C J E, VAN BODEGOM P M, et al.

A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services

Ecological Indicators, 2014, 39: 24-33.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024      URL     [本文引用: 1]

STERN P C, DIETZ T.

The value basis of environmental concern

Journal of Social Issues, 1994, 50(3): 65-84.

DOI:10.1111/josi.1994.50.issue-3      URL     [本文引用: 1]

VASKE J J, DONNELLY M P, WILLIAMS D R, et al.

Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management

Society and Natural Resources, 2001, 14(9): 761-776.

DOI:10.1080/089419201753210585      URL     [本文引用: 1]

YU K.

Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts

Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995, 32(2): 107-126.

DOI:10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9      URL     [本文引用: 1]

RUDZITIS G.

Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west

Rural America/Rural Development Perspectives, 1999, 14(2): 9-13.

[本文引用: 1]

MARTIN-LOPEZ B, GOMEZ-BAGGETHUN E, GARCIA-LLORENTE M, et al.

Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment

Ecological Indicators, 2014, 37: 220-228.

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

BUIJS A E, ELANDS B H M, LANGERS F.

No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009, 91(3): 113-123.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003      URL     [本文引用: 1]

INIESTA-ARANDIA I, GARCIA D A D, GARCIA-NIETO A P, et al.

Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean watersheds: Insights for environmental policies

Ambio, 2014, 44(4): 285-296.

DOI:10.1007/s13280-014-0556-1      URL     [本文引用: 1]

KALTENBORN B P, BJERKE T.

Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002, 59(1): 1-11.

DOI:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2      URL     [本文引用: 1]

BROWN G, BRABYN L.

An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012, 107(3): 317-331.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007      URL     [本文引用: 1]

MAASS J M, BALVANERA P, CASTILLO A, et al.

Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: Insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico

Ecology and Society, 2005, 10(1): 1-24.

[本文引用: 1]

AGBENYEGA O, BURGESS P J, COOK M, et al.

Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands

Land Use Policy, 2009, 26(3): 551-557.

DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011      URL     [本文引用: 1]

TISDELL C, WILSON C.

Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: Experiments and policy

Contemporary Economic Policy, 2006, 24(1): 144-159.

DOI:10.1093/cep/byj014      URL     [本文引用: 1]

BATEMAN I J, MAWBY J.

First impressions count: Interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies

Ecological Economics, 2004, 49(1): 47-55.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.006      URL     [本文引用: 1]

KOLLMUSS A, AGYEMAN J.

Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?

Environmental Education Research, 2010, 8(3): 37-41.

[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]

[LI S C, LIU J L, ZHANG C Y, et al.

The research trends of ecosystem services and the paradigm in Geography

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011, 66(12): 1618-1630.]

DOI:10.11821/xb201112004      [本文引用: 1]

As studies on ecosystem services are becoming a hot spot among scientists, a research paradigm needs to be built in related discipline fields such as geography. This paper reviewed the progress, problems and trends of studies on ecosystem services at home and abroad. Furthermore, aiming at the topics and problems in current ecosystem service studies, we proposed a geographical paradigm and priority themes in this field. It is suggested that spatial heterogeneity and regional difference should be taken as entry points to study ecosystem services from geographical perspectives. Researches should be focused on the theme of ecosystem structure and function-ecosystem services-human well-being, and take the coupling connections between "ecosystem services offered by natural system and then internalized consumption of socioeconomic system" as the core research theme for comprehensive analysis of the response of socioeconomic system to the internalization of natural capital. We can promote integrated research on geographical sciences by constructing the geographical study paradigm of ecosystem service, which can not only expand the study capacity for ecosystem services, but also raise the level of comprehensive studies on social-ecological system. In addition, we should offer an important practical field for the study of human-land relationship, which is the core issue of geography.

ARETANO R, PETROSILLO I, ZACCARELLI N, et al.

People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments

Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013, 112: 63-73.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010      URL     [本文引用: 1]

张宇硕, 吴殿廷, 吕晓.

土地利用/覆盖变化对生态系统服务的影响: 空间尺度视角的研究综述

自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5): 1172-1189.

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200513      [本文引用: 1]

作为连接自然过程与社会过程的桥梁与纽带,生态系统服务与人类福祉和可持续发展息息相关。土地利用/覆盖变化（Land Use/Land Cover Change,LUCC）是生态系统服务变化的重要原因之一,对生态系统服务的影响随着空间尺度的变化而变化。尺度问题一直是LUCC和生态系统服务理论研究与实践管理的重点与难点。系统理解LUCC对生态系统服务影响的尺度特征、尺度差异及尺度关联,对深入LUCC和生态系统服务的尺度效应研究、协调多层次管理机构的制度决策、缓解生态系统服务稀缺对社会经济发展的限制等具有重要意义。本文从空间尺度切入,基于国内外不同尺度LUCC对生态系统服务影响的理论研究和实践进展,总结归纳尺度的概念与内涵,整理介绍考虑空间尺度的研究框架,系统梳理LUCC对生态系统服务影响研究中的空间尺度选择、空间尺度特征及空间尺度关联,评析单一尺度和多尺度研究方法的特点。并提出未来研究中应在构建人文因素与自然因素相结合的研究框架、阐释LUCC对生态系统服务影响的尺度效应、完善LUCC对生态系统服务影响的尺度分析方法等方面开展更深入的研究。

[ZHANG Y S, WU D T, LYU X.

A review on the impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services from a spatial scale perspective

Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(5): 1172-1189.]

DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200513      URL     [本文引用: 1]

刘焱序, 傅伯杰, 王帅, 等.

空间恢复力理论支持下的人地系统动态研究进展

地理学报, 2020, 75(5): 891-903.

DOI:10.11821/dlxb202005001      [本文引用: 1]

人地系统的概念表现了人与地在特定的地域中相互联系、相互作用而形成的一种动态结构,面向人地系统动态运行过程的复杂性,亟待构建更有力的指标体系表征地球系统和人类系统相互影响与反馈的过程。空间恢复力可以被理解为以保障人地系统结构稳定为目标的地域空间整体对自然和社会扰动的吸收、复原或转化能力,为人地系统研究中针对性理论模式和可定量化指标体系的塑造提供新途径。本文以从自然维度出发的政策与生态系统空间恢复力、从社会维度出发的环境变化与社区生产生活空间恢复力、从综合描述方式出发的空间恢复力综合指标体系三个角度梳理空间恢复力研究现状,并从结构、功能、阈值三个方面研讨不同地域功能类型下的空间恢复力指标体系,提出认知保障系统可持续性的空间状态、明晰人地系统动态过程的空间阈值、满足生态保护与社会进步国家需求三项内容可以作为人地系统动态研究的重要方向。

[LIU Y X, FU B J, WANG S, et al.

Research progress of human-earth system dynamics based on spatial resilience theory

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2020, 75(5): 891-903.]

DOI:10.11821/dlxb202005001      [本文引用: 1]

The concept of human-earth system represents a dynamic structure formed by the interaction between human and earth within a specific region. Considering the complexity of the system, it is necessary to construct a more powerful indicator system to describe the interaction and reflection processes between human and earth systems. The term of spatial resilience can be understood as the overall ability of regional space to absorb, recover or transform natural and social disturbances. Spatial resilience targeted at securing the structural stability of human-earth system, and it also provides a new approach for the shaping of targeted theoretical models and quantifiable indicator system in the study of human-earth system. This study reviews the research progress of spatial resilience from three perspectives, including: ecological policy and ecosystems spatial resilience from a natural perspective; environmental changes and spatial resilience of community production and living from a social perspective and the spatial resilience integrated indicator system from a comprehensive description perspective. Then the article puts forward three important directions of spatial resilience research in China, including understanding the spatial state that guaranteed system sustainability, identifying the spatial thresholds of human-earth system dynamic process, and satisfying the national demands of ecological protection and social development. This study also discusses the spatial resilience indicator system in various human-earth system functional areas from aspects of system structure, function and threshold. By the deepening of the theories and methods of spatial resilience, the human-earth system dynamics can be further understood, so as to improve the regional level accuracy on simulating the socioeconomic, environmental and political paths, and provide key theoretical and methodological support for the decision-making of sustainable development at global, national and regional levels.

ZHANG Y S, LU X, LIU B Y, et al.

Spatial relationships between ecosystem services and socioecological drivers across a large-scale region: A case study in the Yellow River Basin

Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 766: 142480, Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142480.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

黄甘霖, 姜亚琼, 刘志锋, 等.

人类福祉研究进展: 基于可持续科学视角

生态学报, 2016, 36(23): 7519-7527.

[本文引用: 1]

[HUANG G L, JIANG Y Q, LIU Z F, et al.

Advances in human well-being research: A sustainability science perspective

Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(23): 7519-7527.]

[本文引用: 1]

/

〈 〉