Assessment method of watershed ecological asset value in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River: A case study of the Xin'an River Basin
-
摘要:
研究目的 生态资产评估有助于理清区域生态资源本底，为建立健全自然资源监管技术体系，实施生态补偿政策提供科学依据，对于推动生态产品价值实现具有重要意义。
研究方法 本文构建了生态资产价值评估的方法指标体系，通过集成土地利用、遥感影像、气象、地球化学以及社会经济等多源数据，开展生态资产存量、生态资产质量以及生态资产价值评估，并结合地理探测器探求生态系统服务价值的空间分异影响因素。
研究结果 2020年新安江流域生态资产质量等级以良、中为主，分别占比80.96%、10.25%；生态资产存量综合指数为0.77，湿地、森林与园地占主要位置；流域生态系统服务价值为1334.48亿元，森林资源与水资源价值占比最高，坡度、高程和年降水量为影响生态系统服务价值空间分异的主要驱动因子。
结论 新安江流域生态资产价值较高，森林与水资源是流域生态系统服务的主要载体，自然禀赋条件对其生态系统服务价值空间分异的影响程度大于社会经济因素。
Abstract:This paper is the result of environmental geological survey engineering.
Objective The objective of this research endeavor is to evaluate the ecological asset value, thereby facilitating an enhanced comprehension of the foundational aspects of regional ecological resources. By furnishing a scientific foundation for the establishment of comprehensive natural resource management systems and the effective implementation of ecological compensation policies, this study assumes a pivotal role in promoting the realization of the value of ecological products.
Methods This study presented a comprehensive approach for assessing the value of ecological assets. The methodology encompasses the integration of diverse data sources such as land use, remote sensing imagery, meteorology, geochemistry, and socio−economic indicators. Through this integrated framework, evaluations were performed to determine the stock, quality, and value of ecological assets. Furthermore, geographical detector tool was employed to investigate the spatially varying factors that influence the values of ecosystem services.
Results The ecological asset quality in the Xin'an River Basin is primarily in the good and moderate levels, accounting for 80.96% and 10.25%, respectively. The comprehensive index of ecological asset stock in the Xin'an River Basin in 2020 is 0.77. Wetland, forest land, and cultivated land occupy prominent positions. The value of ecosystem service is estimated at 133.448 billion yuan, with forests and water resources having the highest proportion Slope, elevation, and annual precipitation are the main driving factors of spatial differentiation in the value of ecosystem services.
Conclusions Xin'an River Basin has a high ecological asset value. Forests and water resources are the main carriers of ecosystem services in the basin. The impact of natural endowments on the spatial differentiation of ecosystem service values is greater than that of socio−economic factors.
-
-
表 1 数据来源与预处理
Table 1. Data sources and preprocessing methods
数据类型 数据来源及预处理 基础地理信息数据 土地利用数据 土地利用数据来源于第三次国土调查数据 DEM数据 DEM数据来源于地理空间数据云（ https://www.gscloud.cn/ ），空间分辨率为30 m遥感反演与
解译数据植被净初级生产力
（Net Primary Productivity，
NPP）数据来源于MODIS产品数据集中的MOD17A3HGF，该数据集是一个全球陆地植被净初级生产力（NPP）年际变化数据集，由BIOMEBGC模型在500 m空间分辨率下计算，利用三次卷积内插法将其重采样为30 m 年蒸散发数据 2020年蒸散发数据来源于美国地质调查局（USGS, United States Geological Survey, http://glovis.usgs.gov/ ）MODIS产品中的年合成数据MOD13，该数据是根据BIOMEBGC模型计算得到，空间分辨率为500 m年均NDVI数据 NDVI数据是基于Sentinel-2数据进行提取得到，为了消除单一数据源对于计算结果的影响，选取成像时间为2020-1-1到2020-12-31期间云量小于5%的 Sentinel-2影像，计算得到NDVI，并取均值 气象数据 降水数据 2020年逐月降水数据来源于时空三极环境大数据平台（ http://poles.tpdc.ac.cn/zh-hans/ ），该数据集是根据CRU发布的全球0.5°气候数据集以及WorldClim发布的全球高分辨率气候数据集，通过Delta空间降尺度方案在中国地区降尺度生成的，空间分辨率约1 km，并且使用496个独立气象观测点数据进行了验证，验证结果可信地球化学
数据土壤元素含量 土壤元素含量数据来源于生态地球化学实地调查，将该数据按照3倍标准偏差，剔除异常值后利用克里金插值法进行插值（唐志敏等, 2023） 社会经济与
统计数据统计数据 统计数据包括粮食总产量、粮食作物播种面积和市场价值数据，数据来源于《中国统计年鉴》、《安徽省统计年鉴》、《黄山市统计年鉴》、《杭州市统计年鉴》及《宣城市统计年鉴》 社会经济数据 基准地价数据、水价数据来自于当地政府网站 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同自然资源生态资产质量指标及分级标准
Table 2. Different ecological asset quality indicators and grading criteria
生态系统类型 质量评价指标 质量分级标准 优 良 中 低 差 园地 相对净初级生产力 ≥80% 60%~80% 40%~60% 20%~40% ≤20% 湿地 水质 Ⅰ类 Ⅱ类 Ⅲ类 Ⅳ类 Ⅴ类 森林 相对净初级生产力 ≥80% 60%~80% 40%~60% 20%~40% ≤20% 灌丛 相对净初级生产力 ≥80% 60%~80% 40%~60% 20%~40% ≤20% 农田 土地质量等级划分 ≥4.5 3.5~4.5 2.5~3.5 1.5~2.5 ≤1.5 草地 植被覆盖度 ≥80% 60%~80% 40%~60% 20%~40% ≤20%
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 土壤养分地球化学等级分级标准
Table 3. Classification criteria of soil nutrient geochemical levels
元素 一级 二级 三级 四级 五级 N ＞2000 1500~2000 1000~1500 750~1000 ≤750 P ＞1000 800~1000 600~800 400~600 ≤400 K ＞2.5 2.0~2.5 1.5~2.0 1.0~1.5 ≤1.0 注：K单位为%，N、P单位为10−6。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 新安江流域生态系统服务价值当量因子表
Table 4. Equivalent factors of ecosystem service value in Xin'an River Basin
生态系统分类 供给服务 调节服务 支持服务 文化服务 一级
分类二级
分类食物生产 原料生产 水资源供给 气体调节 气候调节 净化环境 水文调节 土壤保持 维持养分循环 生物多样性 美学景观 农田 旱地 0.85 0.4 0.02 0.67 0.36 0.1 0.27 1.03 0.12 0.13 0.06 水田 1.36 0.09 −2.63 1.11 0.57 0.17 2.72 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.09 园地 园地 0.22 0.49 0.26 1.63 4.83 1.43 3.13 1.98 0.15 1.8 0.79 森林 乔木林 0.22 0.52 0.27 1.7 5.07 1.49 3.34 2.06 0.16 1.88 0.82 其他林地 0.31 0.71 0.37 2.35 7.03 1.99 3.51 2.86 0.22 2.6 1.14 竹林 0.29 0.66 0.34 2.17 6.5 1.93 4.47 2.65 0.2 2.41 1.06 灌丛 灌木林 0.19 0.43 0.22 1.41 4.23 1.28 3.35 1.72 0.13 1.57 0.69 草地 其他
草地0.1 0.14 0.08 0.51 1.34 0.44 0.98 0.62 0.05 0.56 0.25 湿地 水域 0.8 0.23 8.29 0.77 2.29 5.55 102.24 0.93 0.07 2.55 1.89 沼泽湿地 0.22 0.5 2.59 1.9 3.6 3.6 24.23 2.31 0.18 7.87 4.73 建设用地 建设用地 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.1 0.31 0.21 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.05
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 新安江流域2020年生态资产存量评估
Table 5. Assessment of ecological asset stock in the Xin'an River Basin in 2020
生态资产 质量等级 存量指数 优 良 中 低 差 存量 比例/% 存量 比例/% 存量 比例/% 存量 比例/% 存量 比例/% 森林 486.93 5.9 7040 85.25 596.3 7.22 4.5 0.05 130.6 1.58 0.79 灌丛 23.86 8.24 233.92 80.77 23.96 8.27 0.33 0.11 7.52 2.60 0.78 农田 7.18 0.92 180.29 23.10 450.94 57.78 138.95 17.80 3.05 0.39 0.61 草地 1.02 3.70 8.30 30.18 8.50 30.92 5.62 20.44 4.06 14.77 0.58 园地 127.01 12.61 787.44 78.20 57.02 5.66 0.39 0.04 35.12 3.49 0.79 湿地 0.00 0.00 731.78 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 2020 年新安江流域生态服务功能价值评价结果（亿元）
Table 6. Evaluation results of ecological service values in the Xin'an River Basin in 2020 (100 million yuan)
服务类型 总值/(所占比例/%) 森林 园地 湿地 灌木林 农田 草地 建设
用地供给
服务食物生产 15.06/1.13 8.49 0.88 2.08 0.21 3.35 0.04 0.00 原料生产 23.50/1.76 19.94 1.95 0.62 0.46 0.48 0.06 0.00 水资源供给 45.44/3.41 16.94 1.61 35.18 0.39 8.72 0.06 0.00 调节
服务气体调节 78.33/5.87 65.36 6.42 2.08 1.51 2.71 0.22 0.04 气候调节 226.97/17.01 195.00 18.36 5.80 4.46 0.80 0.53 0.00 净化环境 79.29/5.94 56.95 5.61 14.55 1.37 0.42 0.19 0.20 水文调节 667.71/50.04 198.82 19.46 433.32 5.92 9.39 0.68 0.10 支持
服务土壤保持 63.05/4.72 54.06 5.29 1.71 1.25 0.54 0.18 0.03 维持养分循环 5.14/0.39 4.19 0.39 0.13 0.10 0.33 0.01 0.00 生物多样性 89.11/6.68 72.58 7.10 6.96 1.68 0.51 0.24 0.04 文化
服务美学景观 40.88/3.06 31.59 3.09 5.11 0.74 0.23 0.11 0.02 总计 1334.48/100 723.92 70.17 507.54 18.06 10.05 2.31 0.43
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 新安江流域生态系统服务价值空间分异驱动因子探测结果
Table 7. Detection results of spatial variation and driving factors of ecosystem service values in the Xin'an River Basin
因子指标 降水 高程 坡度 GDP 人口密度 HAI q统计量 0.183 0.153 0.226 0.0004 0.003 0.039 P值 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.78998 0.000 0.000 注：P值表示q值所对应的显著性；P值<0.05，说明通过显著性检验。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Bai Yang, Li Hui, Wang Xiaoyuan, Juha M Alatalo, Jiang Bo, Wang Min, Liu Wenjun. 2017. Evaluating natural resource assets and gross ecosystem products using ecological accounting system: A case study in Yunnan Province[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 32(7): 1100−1112 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[2] Chen Fu, Ge Xiaoping, Chen Gang, Peng Buzhou. 2001. Spatial different analysis of landscape change and human impact in urban fringe[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 21(3): 210−216 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] Costanza R, Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?[J]. Ecosystem Services, 28: 1−16. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
[4] Dai Jiayuan, Hu Shuheng, Zhang Beier, Yang Qing. 2021. Study on ecological compensation standard based on opportunity cost and ecosystem service value accounting: A case study of Xin’an river basin[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 60(21): 152−157 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] Dong Tian, Zhang Lu, Xiao Yi, Zheng Hua, Huang Binbin, Ouyang Zhiyun. 2019. Assessment of ecological assets and gross ecosystem product value in Ordos City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(9): 3062−3074 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] He Yi, Tang Xiangling, Dai Junfeng. 2021. Land–use structure optimization for the Lijiang River basin ecosystem service value maximization[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(13): 5214−5222 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7] Hou Peng, Fu Zhuo, Zhu Hanshou, Zhai Jun, Chen Yan, Gao Haifeng, Jin Diandian, Yang Min. 2020. Progress and perspectives of ecosystem assets management[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(24): 8851−8860 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[8] Hu Yongjun, Gu Shuzhong. 2018. Research trends and analysis of natural resource assets[J]. Resources Science, 40(6): 1095−1105 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[9] Huang B B, Li R N, Ding Z W, Patrick O, Kong L Q, Xiao Y, Xu W H, Guo Y N, Yang Y Y, Li R D, Ouyang Z Y, Wang X K, 2020. A new remote–sensing–based indicator for integrating quantity and quality attributes to assess the dynamics of ecosystem assets[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22: e00999.
[10] Lai T Y, Salminen J, Jäppinen J P, Koljonen S, Mononen L, Nieminen E, Vihervaara P, Oinonen S. 2018. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland[J]. Ecological Modelling, 377: 51−65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.03.006
[11] Li Chuanhua, Zhu Tongbin, Zhou Min, Yin Huanhuan, Wang Yutao, Sun Hao, Cao Hongjuan, Han Haiyan. 2021. Temporal and spatial change of net primary productivity of vegetation and its determinants in Hexi Corridor[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(5): 1931−1943 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[12] Li Donghua, Zhang Xiaoyao, Wang Yong, Zhang Xiao, Li Lei, Lu Lin. 2021. Evolution process of ecosystem services and the trade–off synergy in Xin’an River Basin[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(17): 6981−6993 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[13] Li Jiahui, Huang Lin, Cao Wei, Wu Dan. 2022a. Accounting of gains and losses of ecological assets in counties of key ecological function regions in Yangtze River Delta[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 37(8): 1946−1960 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20220802
[14] Li Jiahui, Huang Lin, Cao Wei. 2022b. The influencing mechanism of ecological asset gains and losses at the county level in China and its optimization and promotion paths[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 77(5): 1260–1274 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] Li Xiaohui, Xiao Jinghao, Wang Jianjun, Wu Jie, Long Nao. 2022. Research on the evaluation and application of natural resources assets for ecological restoration: A case study of Guangzhou City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(18): 6216−6228 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16] Liu Qian, Li Ge, Zhang Chao, Zhao Li, Zhu Yongming. 2019. Study on dynamic changes in ecosystem service values in Qinglong County based on coefficient correction[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco–Agriculture, 27(6): 971−980 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17] Liu Yuan, Zhou Yong. 2019. Spatiotemporal dynamics and grey forecast of ecosystem services value in the Yangtze River economic belt[J]. Ecological Economy, 35(4): 196−201 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] Ma Chao, Wang Hongwei, Ma Xiaofang, Chenying, Zhouxin. 2021. Evaluation of ecosystem service value in middle reaches of Hei River in Gaotai County, Zhangye City[J]. Wetland Science, 19(6): 762−766 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19] Nie Weiping, Chen Dongfeng. 2017. The progress and mechanism improvement of the second round eco–compensation implementation in Xinan River Basin[J]. Environmental Protection, 45(7): 19−23 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20] Qiu Qiong, Shi Han. 2018. Differentiation of the core concepts of natural resourceand ecosystem accounting[J]. Resources Science, 40(10): 1901−1914 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21] Sun Menghua, Niu Wenhao, Zhang Bangbang, Geng Qingling, Yu Qiang. 2021. Spatial–temporal evolution and responses of ecosystem service value under land use change in the Yellow River Basin: A case study of Shaanxi–Gansu–Ningxia region, Northwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 32(11): 3913−3922 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22] Sun Xiao, Li Feng. 2017. Assessment method and application of urban ecological assets: A case study in Zengcheng, Guangzhou City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(18): 6216−6228 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] Sun Zhangtao, Yu Zhengwei, Shu Siqi, Xu Chuangsheng, Shu Yang. 2023. Evaluation of ecosystem services of Chinese provincial land and suggestions for ecological geological survey[J]. Geology in China, 50(2): 479−494 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24] Tang Zhimin, Zhang Xiaodong, Zhang Ming, Zhou Mo, Tian Fujin, Wang Shangxiao, Ma Qingshan, Wang Chong, Zhang Jie, Niu Xiaonan, Zong Leli, Huang Dingling. 2023. Geochemical characteristics of soil elements in Xin’an River Basin: Constraints from rock formation types[J]. East China Geology, 44(2): 172−185 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[25] Tian Fujin, Ma Qingshan, Zhang Ming, Tang Zhimin. 2023. Evaluation of water quality in Xin'anjiang River Basin based on principal component analysis and entropy weight method[J]. Geology in China, 50(2): 495−505 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[26] Wang Jinfeng, Xu Chengdong. 2017. Geodetector: Principle and prospective[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(1): 116−134 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[27] Xie Gaodi, Lu Chunxia, Leng Yunfa, Zheng Du, Li Shuangcheng. 2003. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 18(2): 189−196 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[28] Xie Gaodi, Zhang Caixia, Zhang Leiming, Chen Wenhui, Li Shimei. 2015. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 30(8): 1243−1254 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[29] Xie Gaodi. 2017. Ecological asset evaluation: Stock, quality and value[J]. Environmental Protection, 45(11): 18−22 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[30] Xu Yanling, Xu Chen, Yang Guishan. 2022. Valuation and ecological zoning of county–level ecological assets in the humid hilly region of southeast China: A case study of Liyang City[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 31(7): 1572−1583 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[31] Xue Minggao, Xing Lu, Wang Xiaoyan. 2018. Spatial correction and evaluation of ecosystem services in China[J]. China Land Science, 32(9): 81−88 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[32] Yan Enping, Lin Hui, Wang Guangxing, Xia Chaozong. 2014. Analysis of evolution and driving force of ecosystem service values in the Three Gorges Reservoir region during 1990—2011[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(20): 5962−5973 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[33] Yang Lan, Hu Shuheng. 2020. Cross–border ecological compensation standard based on dynamic measurement model: Taking Xin’an River Basin as an example[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(17): 5957−5967 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[34] You Xu, He Dongjin, Xiao Yan, Bo Wenjing, Song Changsu, Ouyang Zhiyun. 2020. Assessment of eco–assets in a county area: A case of Pingbian County[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 40(15): 5220−5229 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[35] Zhang Naifu, Liu Xia, Zhu Jipeng, Zhang Guangcan, Zhang Ronghua, Yang Shaoyang, Wang Jing. 2014. Assessment and spatial heterogeneity of soil erosion sensitivity in the Xin’anjiang river basin, Anhui Province[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 12(6): 8−15 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[36] Zhang Weimin. 2021. Study on ecological assets accounting framework of nature reserve in China[J]. Natural Protected Areas, 1(2): 22−30 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[37] Zhang Yufeng, Liu Xiaojuan. 2021. Construction of assets and liabilities accounting system for land resources at county level[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 35(6): 39−43 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[38] Zhao Xingchen, Xu Hai, Yu Jie, Liu Mingliang, Shan Liang, Cheng Xinliang, Zhu Guangwei, Li Huiyun, Zhu Mengyuan, Kang Lijuan. 2022. Impacts of urban distribution on nutrient concentrations in Xin’an River and Qiandaohu reservoir[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 35(4): 864−876 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[39] 白杨, 李晖, 王晓媛, Juha M Alatalo, 江波, 王敏, 刘文俊. 2017. 云南省生态资产与生态系统生产总值核算体系研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 32(7): 1100−1112. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.20160755
[40] 陈浮, 葛小平, 陈刚, 彭补拙. 2001. 城市边缘区景观变化与人为影响的空间分异研究[J]. 地理科学, 21(3): 210−216. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2001.03.004
[41] 戴家远, 胡淑恒, 张贝尔, 杨庆. 2021. 基于机会成本和生态系统服务价值核算的生态补偿标准研究—以新安江流域为例[J]. 湖北农业科学, 60(21): 152−157.
[42] 董天, 张路, 肖燚, 郑华, 黄斌斌, 欧阳志云. 2019. 鄂尔多斯市生态资产和生态系统生产总值评估[J]. 生态学报, 39(9): 3062−3074.
[43] 何毅, 唐湘玲, 代俊峰. 2021. 漓江流域生态系统服务价值最大化的土地利用结构优化[J]. 生态学报, 41(13): 5214−5222.
[44] 侯鹏, 付卓, 祝汉收, 翟俊, 陈妍, 高海峰, 金点点, 杨旻. 2020. 生态资产评估及管理研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 40(24): 8851−8860.
[45] 胡咏君, 谷树忠. 2018. 自然资源资产研究态势及其分析[J]. 资源科学, 40(6): 1095−1105.
[46] 李传华, 朱同斌, 周敏, 殷欢欢, 王玉涛, 孙皓, 曹红娟, 韩海燕. 2021. 河西走廊植被净初级生产力时空变化及其影响因子研究[J]. 生态学报, 41(5): 1931−1943.
[47] 李冬花, 张晓瑶, 王咏, 张潇, 李磊, 陆林. 2021. 新安江流域生态系统服务演化过程及权衡协同关系[J]. 生态学报, 41(17): 6981−6993.
[48] 李佳慧, 黄麟, 曹巍, 吴丹. 2022a. 长三角重点生态功能县域生态资产损益核算[J]. 自然资源学报, 37(8): 1946−1960.
[49] 李佳慧, 黄麟, 曹巍. 2022b. 中国县域生态资产损益的影响机制及优化提升路径[J]. 地理学报, 77(5): 1260−1274.
[50] 李晓晖, 萧敬豪, 王建军, 吴婕, 龙闹. 2022. 面向生态修复的自然资源资产评估与应用研究—以广州市为例[J]. 生态学报, 37(18): 6216−6228.
[51] 刘倩, 李葛, 张超, 赵丽, 朱永明. 2019. 基于系数修正的青龙县生态系统服务价值动态变化研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 27(6): 971−980.
[52] 刘园, 周勇. 2019. 长江经济带生态系统服务价值时空变化特征分析及灰色预测[J]. 生态经济, 35(4): 196−201.
[53] 马超, 王宏伟, 马晓芳, 陈英, 周鑫. 2021. 张掖市高台县黑河中游流域生态系统服务价值估算[J]. 湿地科学, 19(6): 762−766.
[54] 聂伟平, 陈东风. 2017. 新安江流域(第二轮)生态补偿试点进展及机制完善探索[J]. 环境保护, 45(7): 19−23.
[55] 邱琼, 施涵. 2018. 关于自然资源与生态系统核算若干概念的讨论[J]. 资源科学, 40(10): 1901−1914.
[56] 孙梦华, 牛文浩, 张蚌蚌, 耿庆玲, 于强. 2021. 黄河流域土地利用变化下生态系统服务价值时空演变及其响应—以陕甘宁地区为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 32(11): 3913−3922.
[57] 孙晓, 李锋. 2017. 城市生态资产评估方法与应用—以广州市增城区为例[J]. 生态学报, 37(18): 6216−6228.
[58] 孙张涛, 余正伟, 舒思齐. 2023. 中国省域生态系统服务价值评价与生态地质调查工作建议[J]. 中国地质, 50(2): 479−494.
[59] 唐志敏, 张晓东, 张明, 周墨, 田福金, 王尚晓, 马青山, 王冲, 张洁, 牛晓楠, 宗乐丽, 黄丁伶. 2023. 新安江流域土壤元素地球化学特征: 来自岩石建造类型的约束[J]. 华东地质, 44(2): 172−185.
[60] 田福金, 马青山, 张明, 唐志敏. 2023. 基于主成分分析和熵权法的新安江流域水质评价[J]. 中国地质, 50(2): 495−505.
[61] 王劲峰, 徐成东. 2017. 地理探测器: 原理与展望[J]. 地理学报, 72(1): 116−134. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201701010
[62] 谢高地, 鲁春霞, 冷允法, 郑度, 李双成. 2003. 青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 18(2): 189–196.
[63] 谢高地, 张彩霞, 张雷明, 陈文辉, 李士美. 2015. 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, 30(8): 1243−1254. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.08.001
[64] 谢高地. 2017. 生态资产评价: 存量、质量与价值[J]. 环境保护, 45(11): 18−22.
[65] 徐艳玲, 许晨, 杨桂山. 2022. 东南湿润丘陵区县域生态资产评估及分区研究—以溧阳市为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 31(7): 1572−1583.
[66] 薛明皋, 邢路, 王晓艳. 2018. 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, 32(9): 81−88. doi: 10.11994/zgtdkx.20181017.123746
[67] 严恩萍, 林辉, 王广兴, 夏朝宗. 2014. 1990—2011年三峡库区生态系统服务价值演变及驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 34(20): 5962−5973.
[68] 杨兰, 胡淑恒. 2020. 基于动态测算模型的跨界生态补偿标准—以新安江流域为例[J]. 生态学报, 40(17): 5957−5967.
[69] 游旭, 何东进, 肖燚, 博文静, 宋昌素, 欧阳志云. 2020. 县域生态资产核算研究—以云南省屏边县为例[J]. 生态学报, 40(15): 5220−5229.
[70] 张乃夫, 刘霞, 朱继鹏, 张光灿, 张荣华, 杨韶洋, 王静. 2014. 安徽新安江流域土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及空间分异特征[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 12(6): 8−15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3007.2014.06.002
[71] 张卫民. 2021. 中国自然保护地生态资产核算框架研究[J]. 自然保护地, 1(2): 22−30. doi: 10.12335/2096-8981.2021032801
[72] 张裕凤, 刘小娟. 2021. 县域土地资源资产负债核算体系构建—以包头市固阳县为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 35(6): 39−43.
[73] 赵星辰, 许海, 俞洁, 刘明亮, 单亮, 程新良, 朱广伟, 李慧赟, 朱梦圆, 康丽娟. 2022. 城镇分布对新安江水系及千岛湖营养盐浓度的影响[J]. 环境科学研究, 35(4): 864−876.
-
图(5)
表(7)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1120
- PDF下载数: 198
- 施引文献: 0