基于参与式制图的城市保护地生态系统文化服务价值评价——以上海共青森林公园为例

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.201902.011

应用生态学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2): 439-448.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201902.011

• 中国生态学学会2018年学术年会会议专栏 • 上一篇下一篇

基于参与式制图的城市保护地生态系统文化服务价值评价——以上海共青森林公园为例

彭婉婷¹,刘文倩¹,蔡文博²,王鑫¹,黄智³,吴承照^1*

¹同济大学建筑与城市规划学院, 上海 200092;
²英国赫尔大学环境科学学院, 赫尔 HU6 7RX;
³牛津大学大数据研究中心, 牛津 OX1 3PS

收稿日期:2018-03-31 修回日期:2018-12-13 出版日期:2019-02-20 发布日期:2019-02-20
通讯作者: E-mail:wuchzhao@vip.sina.com
作者简介:彭婉婷,女,1989年生,博士研究生.主要从事保护地生态系统管理和评价研究.Email:wantingpeng@hotmail.com
基金资助:
本文由国家社会科学重点基金项目(14AZD107)和国家自然科学基金项目(51278347)资助

Evaluation of ecosystem cultural services of urban protected areas based on public participation GIS (PPGIS): A case study of Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai, China.

PENG Wan-ting¹, LIU Wen-qian¹, CAI Wen-bo², WANG Xin¹, HUANG Zhi³, WU Cheng-zhao^1*

¹College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;
²School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull,Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom;
³Institute of Big Data, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom

Received:2018-03-31 Revised:2018-12-13 Online:2019-02-20 Published:2019-02-20
Supported by:
This work was supported by the Key National Social Science Foundation of China (14AZD107) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51278347).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 生态系统服务价值定量化评价及其空间制图可以为确定生态系统文化服务(CES)优先保护地域提供有效途径.本研究以上海共青森林公园为例,采用问卷和结构式访谈结合参与式制图(PPGIS)方法,将非货币CES价值和空间信息结合,把丰度、多样性和稀有度指数转化为空间生态综合指数,定量评价了CES价值及其空间分布,识别出优先保护地域.结果表明: 不同景观类型的CES价值分布不同,共青森林公园美学服务价值主要分布在相对开阔的草地、滨水和疏林区,滨水区具有较高的社会关系和灵感价值.多样性较高价值区主要沿湖滨水分布,而稀有度价值较高区域多分布在森林和草地区.通过对8个梯度阈值生态指数的最高值区域进行叠加,验证了25%为有效划分阈值,能够更准确划分公园CES优先保护范围.该方法引入公众参与,实现了使用者体验的空间化、定量化、类型化,建立了景观、空间、体验的地域关系,可为城市保护地优先保护地域划分及其规划管理提供重要依据.

关键词: 生态系统文化服务价值, 空间制图, 城市自然保护地, 非货币价值定量评价, 参与式制图法

Abstract: Quantitative evaluation of ecosystem service value and its spatial mapping is an effective way to determine priority conservation areas of cultural ecosystem services (CES). We used a combination of questionnaires and structured interviews with public participatory GIS (PPGIS) in Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai to connect non-monetary CES values with spatially explicit information. This method applied spatial indicators of abundance, diversity and rarity to quantitatively assess the value of CES and their spatial distribution, and identified priority CES areas. The results showed the value of CES varied among landscape types. Relatively open grassland, riverside, and shrub areas were associated with high aesthetic value. Riverside areas were associated with the CES category concerned with inspiration and supporting social relationships. High diversity values mainly distributed in riverside areas, while forest and grassland areas were associated with high rarity values. The areas with the highest values for the abundance, diversity, and rarity indices were overlaid with eight gradient thresholds, which indicated that defining the 25% of ecological areas with the highest overall rating as CES priority areas was an effective threshold for CES identification and management. The methodology in this study leveraged PPGIS to spatially refe-rence, quantify, and user perception to establish relationships between landscape attributes, space, and experience. These results could provide an important basis for identifying, planning for, and managing priority conservation areas in urban protected areas.

Key words: spatial mapping, urban protected area, non-monetary value evaluation, cultural ecosystem services value, public participation GIS

彭婉婷,刘文倩,蔡文博,王鑫,黄智,吴承照. 基于参与式制图的城市保护地生态系统文化服务价值评价——以上海共青森林公园为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(2): 439-448.

PENG Wan-ting, LIU Wen-qian, CAI Wen-bo, WANG Xin, HUANG Zhi, WU Cheng-zhao. Evaluation of ecosystem cultural services of urban protected areas based on public participation GIS (PPGIS): A case study of Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai, China.[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(2): 439-448.

参考文献

[1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005
[2] Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, et al. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 2013, 33: 118-129
[3] Klain SC, Chan, KMA. Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecology Conservation, 2012, 82: 104-113
[4] Guo ZW, Zhang L, Li YM. Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity.PloS One, 2010, 5(10): 1-8
[5] Li S (李晟), Guo Z-X (郭宗香), Yang H-Y (杨怀宇), et al. Evaluation of cultural service value of aquaculture pond ecosystem: A case study in a water conservation area of Shanghai. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 2009, 20(12): 3075-3083 (in Chinese)
[6] Feld CK, da Silva PM, Sousa JP, et al. Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales. Synthesising Ecology, 2009, 12: 1862-1871
[7] Darvill R, Lindo Z. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 153-161
[8] Richards DR, Friess DA. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 53: 187-195
[9] Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM. An application of social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecologi-cal Indicators, 2014, 36: 68-79
[10] Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Mana-gement, 2012, 8: 17-25
[11] Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 2011, 31: 748-760
[12] Brown G. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society & Natural Resources, 2005, 18: 17-39
[13] Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, et al. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landscape and Urban Planning, 2010, 97: 111-122
[14] Brown G, Fagerholm N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 119-133
[15] Dong L-G (董连耕), Zhu W-B (朱文博), Gao Y (高阳), et al.Research progress in culture ecosystem ser-vices (CES) and its development trend. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensi (北京大学学报:自然科学版), 2014, 50(6): 1155-1162 (in Chinese)
[16] Mao Q-Z (毛齐正), Huang G-L (黄甘霖), Wu J-G (邬建国). Urban ecosystem services: A review. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 2015, 26(4): 3075-3083 (in Chinese)
[17] Lyytimki J, Sipil M. Hopping on one leg: The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2009, 4: 309-315
[18] von Dhren P, Haase D. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 52: 490-497
[19] Dunn RR. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: The unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica, 2010, 42: 555-557
[20] Manzo L. For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2005, 25: 67-86
[21] Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, et al. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68: 1301-1315
[22] Shannon CE. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Master Thesis. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Illinois, 1949
[23] Magurran AE. Measuring Biological Diversitys. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2004
[24] Liu W-Q (刘文倩). Research for Influencing Mechanism and Management Strategies of Social Trails in Urban Parks: Taking Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai as an Example. Master Thesis. Shanghai: Tongji University, 2016 (in Chinese)
[25] Ridding LE, Redhead JW, Oliver TH, et al. The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services.Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 206: 1145-1154
[26] Frick J, Degenhardt B, Buchecker M. Predicting local residents’ use of nearby outdoor recreation areas through quality perceptions and recreational expectations. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 2007, 81: 31-41
[27] Brown G, Brabyn L. An analysis of the relationships between multiple valuesand physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012, 107: 317-331
[28] Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Lozada P, et al. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem ser-vice: An application at the local level in Southern Chile. Applied Geography, 2013, 40: 71-82
[29] Peńa L, Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M. Mapping recreation supply anddemand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach.Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 108-118
[30] Koskela H, Pain R. Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum, 2000, 31: 269-280
[31] Troy A, Grove JM, O’Neil-Dunne J. The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012, 106: 262-270
[32] Purvis A, Hector A. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature, 2000, 405: 212-219
[33] May RM. How many species are there on Earth? Science, 1988, 241: 1441-1449
[34] Gaston KJ, Williams PH. Mapping the world’s species: The higher taxon approach. Biodiversity Letters, 1993, 1: 2-8
[35] Kunin WE, Gaston KJ. The Biology of Rarity: Causes and Consequences of Rare-Common Differences, Vol.17. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012
[36] Chan KM, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A Framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 2012, 62: 744-756
[37] Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, et al. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 2014, 8:1277-1285
[38] Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M, Madariaga I, et al. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landscape Ecology, 2014, 8: 1393-1405
[39] Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT. Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental world views: A spatial analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, 145: 374-384
[40] Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ. Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosystem Services, 2017, 25: 179-194
[41] Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68: 643-653
[42] McIntyre N, Moore J, Yuan M. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources, 2008, 21: 657-670

基于参与式制图的城市保护地生态系统文化服务价值评价——以上海共青森林公园为例

Evaluation of ecosystem cultural services of urban protected areas based on public participation GIS (PPGIS): A case study of Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai, China.

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价