北京市生态涵养区生态系统服务供给与流动的能值分析

doi:10.11821/dlxb201706003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

近年来北京市建成区扩张迅速,对城市周边地区的生态系统服务需求上升。本文以北京市生态涵养区为例,利用能值评估方法评估该区域生态系统服务,分析各生态系统及其与城市系统之间的服务流动和依赖关系。研究结果表明：从生态系统类型上看,2012年森林生态系统服务对涵养区生态系统服务贡献最大,占到生态系统服务总能值的79.7%,其次为农田和水域生态系统,分别占总能值的19.7%和0.6%;从生态系统服务类型上看,森林生态系统的有机物生产和水源涵养是其主要的生态系统服务,分别占总能值产出的40.4%和35.8%。粮食供给是农田系统的主要能值输出,占农田生态系统能值的70%。水域提供的生态系统服务中,能值比例较高的依次为水源供给、洪水调蓄和水产品供给,分别占水域生态系统能值的35.1%、28.6%和28.2%;从能值转移矩阵分析可以看出,对城市来说,森林生物量、森林土壤水、水域地下水和农田生物量是重要的生态系统服务供给组分;系统能值动态分析结果表明,2004年到2012年森林和水域生态系统重要程度增加,农田生态系统重要程度有所减少,城市系统的角色由主动变为被动。因此,在未来的发展规划中,对森林和水域生态系统的保育应给予足够关注。

关键词: 生态系统服务, 能值分析, 生态涵养区, 北京市

Abstract:

Beijing, as the political, communicational, cultural, and technological center of China, has been experiencing rapid urban expansion in recent years. This fast urbanization resulted in greater demands for ecosystem services from peri-urban ecosystems. Based on emergy analysis and using impact matrix, this study took the urban ecological conservation area (ECA) of Beijing as an example to evaluate the ecosystem services flows and the level of dependence between natural and urban systems. In terms of ecosystem types, results show that forest ecosystem contributes the most to ecosystem service provision in ECA, which represents 79.7% of total ecosystem services emergy in 2012. Meanwhile, cropland and aquatic ecosystems account for 19.7% and 0.6%, respectively. From the perspective of ecosystem services types, biomass production and water retention are the two dominative service types provided by forest ecosystem, accounting for 40.4% and 35.8% of forest ecosystem services emergy respectively. Food supply is the most significant emergy component in cropland ecosystem, which represents 70% of cropland ecosystem service emergy. Water supply, flood storage and aquatic product supply are the three most important emergy components in aquatic ecosystem, which account for 35.1%, 28.6% and 28.2% of the total aquatic emergy respectively. Results of emergy impact matrix suggest that forest biomass, soil water, groundwater and cropland biomass are the four vital providers of ecosystem services to urban system. At the temporal scale, results demonstrated that forest and aquatic ecosystems played more and more significant roles in water retention and water supply while cropland ecosystems became less and less important in food supply from 2004 to 2012. Urban system also transformed from a positive influencing to a passive receiving factor of ecosystem services in this period. Accordingly, more attention should be paid to conservation of forest and aquatic ecosystems in future urban planning in order to achieve better ecosystem service provision.

Key words: ecosystem services, emergy analysis, ecological conservation area, Beijing

马程, 王晓玥, 张雅昕, 李双成. 北京市生态涵养区生态系统服务供给与流动的能值分析[J]. 地理学报, 2017, 72(6): 974-985.

Cheng MA, Xiaoyue WANG, Yaxin ZHANG, Shuangcheng LI. Emergy analysis of ecosystem services supply and flow in Beijing ecological conservation area[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(6): 974-985.

图/表 13

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

表3

表4

图9

参考文献 24

[1]	Zasada I.Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture: A review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy, 2011, 28(4): 639-648. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008
[2]	Aubry C, Ramamonjisoa J, Dabat M H, et al.Urban agriculture and land use in cities: An approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo (Madagascar). Land Use Policy, 2012, 29(2): 429-439. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.08.009
[3]	Temple L, Moustier P.The functions and constraints of peri-urban agriculture of several African cities (Yaoundé, Cotonou, Dakar). Cahiers Agricultures, 2004, 13: 15-22.
[4]	Haase D, Nuissl H.Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870-2003. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 80(1): 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.011
[5]	Kenyon W, Hill G, Shannon P.Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land Use Policy, 2008, 25(3): 351-360. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.003
[6]	Wheater H, Evans E.Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land Use Policy, 2009, 26(Suppl.1): S251-S264. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.019
[7]	Lamptey B L, Barron E J, Pollard D.Impacts of agriculture and urbanization on the climate of the Northeastern United States. Global and Planetary Change, 2005, 49: 203-221. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.10.001
[8]	Hutchinson J J, Campbell C A, Desjardins R L.Some perspectives on carbon sequestration in agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2007, 142: 288-302. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.030
[9]	Davoudi S, Stead D.Urban-rural relationships: An introduction and brief history. Built Environment, 2002, 28(4): 269-277. doi: 10.2307/23287748
[10]	Ba A, Moustier P.Perception of proximity agriculture by the residents of Dakar. Journal of Regional & Urban Economy, 2010(5): 913-936.
[11]	Sullivan W C, Lovell S T.Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006, 77: 152-166. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.008
[12]	Ülo Mander, Wiggering H, Helming K. Multifunctional Land Use. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2007: 93-104.
[13]	Overbeek G.Opportunities for rural-urban relationships to enhance the rural landscape. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2009, 11(1): 61-68. doi: 10.1080/15239080902775058
[14]	Huang S L, Chen Y H, Kuo F Y, et al.Emergy-based evaluation of peri-urban ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 2011, 8(1): 38-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.12.002
[15]	Xie Hualin, Li Bo, Liu Liming, et al.Functional evaluation of mountain landscape: A case study of Huairou District, Beijing City. Mountain Research, 2004, 22(6): 756-761. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2004.06.020
	[谢花林, 李波, 刘黎明, 等. 北京山区景观功能评价: 以北京市怀柔区为例. 山地学报, 2004, 22(6): 756-761.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2004.06.020
[16]	Huang Jiao.Land use management based on ecosystem services districts in peri-urban area: An exploratory study for Beijing [D]. Beijing: Peking University, 2012.
	[黄姣. 基于生态系统服务区的城市周边地区土地利用管理: 以北京为例的探索研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学, 2012.]
[17]	Li Yunyan.The implementation approaches and policies and measures of ecological compensation mechanism for Beijing ecological conservation districts. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics, 2011, 7(12): 75-80.
	[李云燕. 北京市生态涵养区生态补偿机制的实施途径与政策措施. 中央财经大学学报, 2011, 7(12): 75-80.]
[18]	Daily G.Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. California: Island Press, 1997.
[19]	Tang Cuiwen, Yang Shasha, Liu Lijuan, et al.Ecological services value of forest ecosystem in eastern Qilian Mountains based on emergy theory. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2012, 31(2): 433-439.
	[汤萃文, 杨莎莎, 刘丽娟, 等. 基于能值理论的东祁连山森林生态系统服务功能价值评价. 生态学杂志, 2012, 31(2): 433-439.]
[20]	Ma Fengjiao, Liu Jintong.Agriculture ecosystem services assessment based on emergy analysis in Luancheng County. Resources Science, 2014, 36(9): 1949-1957.
	[马凤娇, 刘金铜. 基于能值分析的农田生态系统服务评估: 以河北省栾城县为例. 资源科学, 2014, 36(9): 1949-1957.]
[21]	Zhang Pei, Yao Juan.Research on change of lakes-rivers ecosystem services energy value at Big Kanas tourism area. Water Resources and Power, 2015, 33(8): 37-41.
	[张佩, 姚娟. 大喀纳斯旅游区湖泊—河流生态系统服务能值变化研究. 水电能源科学, 2015, 33(8): 37-41.]
[22]	Vester F.The biocybernetic approach as a basis for planning our environment. Systemic Practice, 1988, 1(4): 399-413. doi: 10.1007/BF01066582
[23]	Folke C, Jansson A, Larsson J, et al.Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 1997, 26(3): 167-172.
[24]	Xie G D, Chen W H, Cao S Y, et al.The outward extension of an ecological footprint in city expansion: The case of Beijing. Sustainability, 2014, 6(12): 9371-9386. doi: 10.3390/su6129371

能量方向	组分1 组分2 组分3 组分4···	主动加和(AS)
组分1
组分2
组分3
组分4 ···
被动加和(PS)
总和(AS+PS)
比值Q(AS/PS)

	主动累加AS			被动累加PS				总累加TS				主动累加/被动累加Q
	2004		2008	2012		2004	2008	2012	2004	2008	2012	2004	2008	2012
森林生态系统	1.4E+20	1.7E+20	3.0E+20	8.7E+19	1.3E+20	2.2E+20		2.3E+20	3.1E+20	5.1E+20		1.61	1.32	1.33
土壤水	3.3E+19	5.7E+19	1.3E+20	9.5E+18	3.3E+19	5.4E+19		4.2E+19	9.0E+19	1.8E+20		3.41	1.73	4.34
土壤营养	6.8E+19	8.2E+19	1.4E+20	9.8E+18	1.4E+19	2.5E+19		7.8E+19	9.7E+19	1.7E+20		6.96	5.84	5.72
生物量	4.1E+19	3.5E+19	2.5E+19	6.8E+19	8.4E+19	1.4E+20		1.1E+20	1.2E+20	1.7E+20		0.59	0.41	0.18
农田生态系统	7.8E+20	5.0E+20	1.5E+20	2.3E+20	2.0E+20	2.9E+20		1.0E+21	7.0E+20	4.4E+20		3.45	2.47	0.52
土壤水	7.9E+19	6.6E+19	1.1E+19	8.5E+19	9.2E+19	2.2E+20		1.6E+20	1.6E+20	2.3E+20		0.93	0.72	0.05
土壤营养	7.8E+19	4.9E+19	1.9E+19	5.1E+19	3.6E+19	1.3E+19		1.3E+20	8.5E+19	3.2E+19		1.51	1.36	1.47
生物量	6.2E+20	3.9E+20	1.2E+20	9.1E+19	7.6E+19	6.1E+19		7.1E+20	4.6E+20	1.8E+20		6.90	5.11	2.00
水域生态系统	6.5E+19	1.5E+20	2.9E+20	2.3E+19	1.1E+20	2.3E+20		8.8E+19	2.6E+20	5.2E+20		2.85	1.36	1.27
上游	5.2E+19	8.3E+19	2.2E+20	1.4E+19	7.4E+19	1.9E+20		6.5E+19	1.6E+20	4.0E+20		3.79	1.12	1.16
下游	1.4E+19	6.5E+19	7.6E+19	9.3E+18	3.5E+19	4.3E+19		2.3E+19	1.0E+20	1.2E+20		1.47	1.85	1.78
地下水	8.5E+15	1.0E+16	3.3E+16	6.6E+16	4.8E+16	4.9E+17		7.4E+16	5.8E+16	5.2E+17		0.13	0.22	0.07
城市系统	6.5E+21	9.9E+21	2.3E+22	2.4E+21	9.7E+21	2.4E+22		8.9E+21	2.0E+22	4.7E+22		2.71	1.03	0.95

年份	研究区域	研究方法	研究结果	数据来源
1997年	波罗的海地区29个大城市	生态足迹法	为欧洲波罗的海地区29个大城市提供资源消耗和废弃物同化的森林、农业、海洋和湿地生态系统的总面积,至少应是这29个大城市本身面积的565到1130倍	[23]
2008-2012年	北京市	生态足迹距离法	北京市食物消耗生态足迹从567 km增长到677 km,平均每年增长25 km	[24]
2012年	北京市	能值核算和能值影响矩阵法	城市系统的被动累加值最大,是森林生态系统的110倍、农田生态系统的84倍、水域生态系统的106倍	本文