欢迎访问《应用生态学报》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

应用生态学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (12): 3595-3602.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202512.032

• 山水林田湖草沙保护修复专栏(专栏策划: 岳文泽、肖武) • 上一篇    下一篇

国内外生态保护修复技术体系及其标准比较

吕飞南1, 郭炳茹1, 牛新生1, 宇振荣1*, 李红举2   

  1. 1中国农业大学资源与环境学院, 北京 100193;
    2自然资源部国土整治中心, 北京 100034
  • 收稿日期:2025-06-06 修回日期:2025-09-16 出版日期:2025-12-18 发布日期:2026-07-18
  • 通讯作者: *E-mail: yuzhr@cau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:吕飞南, 男, 1993年生, 博士。主要从事生态修复领域研究。E-mail: lvfeinan@foxmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目(2024YFF1307901)

Comparison of ecological protection and restoration technology systems and their standards at home and abroad

LYU Feinan1, GUO Bingru1, NIU Xinsheng1, YU Zhenrong1*, LI Hongju2   

  1. 1College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China;
    2Ministry of Natural Resources National Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Center, Beijing 100034, China
  • Received:2025-06-06 Revised:2025-09-16 Online:2025-12-18 Published:2026-07-18

摘要: 生态保护修复技术体系及其标准是实现山水林田湖草沙系统治理的关键支撑。本文通过对比分析美国(美洲)、英国(欧洲)和中国的生态保护修复技术体系及标准,评估了我国生态保护修复技术体系及标准建设的现状、问题,并提出优化路径。欧美国家在自然资源保护与生态修复技术体系中表现出高度的系统性、精细化,技术标准覆盖全流程,注重生态效益与生物多样性保护,并强调多利益相关方协同参与。相比之下,我国生态保护修复技术标准在数量、结构、时效性和系统性方面存在不足,表现为技术标准数量偏少、综合建设类技术标准占比过高、管护和精细化生态修复关键技术标准缺失以及对技术实施的生态环境影响考量不足等问题。针对这些问题,本文提出了构建分层分类的技术标准体系、完善基于自然解决方案的技术导则、推动国家重点研发项目成果转化、建立动态修订机制、构建生态保护修复技术数据库和技术实践生态补偿标准等对策建议。

关键词: 生态保护修复技术, 技术标准, 生态管护, 生态系统服务, 生物多样性保护

Abstract: The ecological protection and restoration technology system and its standards serve as crucial support for achieving systematic governance of mountains, rivers, forests, fields, lakes, grasslands, and deserts. We evaluated the current status and problems of ecological protection and restoration technology system and standards construction in China, by comparing and analyzing the technology systems and standards of the United States (America) and the United Kingdom (Europe) with those of China. We further proposed optimization paths. The natural resource protection and ecological restoration technology systems in European and American countries demonstrate a high degree of systematicness and refinement, with technical standards covering the entire process. They emphasize ecological benefits and biodiversity conservation, and highlight the collaborative participation of multiple stakeholders. In contrast, the standards of such system in China face deficiencies in terms of quantity, structure, timeliness, and systematicness. These problems manifest as a limited number of technical standards, an excessively high proportion of comprehensive construction-related technical standards, a lack of key technical standards for management and protection, as well as precision ecological restoration, and insufficient consideration of the ecological environmental impacts of technology implementation. To address these problems, we proposed countermeasures and suggestions, such as constructing a hierarchical and classified technology standard system, improving technology guidelines based on natural solutions, promoting the transformation of national key research and development project outcomes, establishing a dynamic revision mechanism, constructing an ecological protection and restoration technology database, and formulating technical practice ecological compensation standards.

Key words: ecological protection and restoration technology, technical standard, ecological stewardship, ecosystem service, biodiversity conservation