PDF(1161 KB)
PDF(1161 KB)
PDF(1161 KB)
南水北调中线一期工程受水区生态效益评价指标体系研究
Ecological Benefit Index System for Water Receiving Area of the First Phase Middle Route South-to-North Water Diversion Project
围绕林地、绿地、湿地、水域以及地下水生态系统,以南水北调中线一期工程受水区为研究对象,融合功能价值法和当量因子法,建立了南水北调中线一期工程生态效益评价指标体系。对南水北调中线一期工程受水区以行政区进行划分,结合统计数据和遥感数据,以2014年为基准年,2018年、2020年、2023年为评估年,分别评估了北京、天津、河南11县(市)、河北6县(市)由于工程供水产生的生态效益价值。结果表明:2015—2018年、2019—2020年、2021—2023年各评估时段由南水北调中线一期工程供水累计新增的生态效益分别为448.59、183.28、371.02亿元,其中湿地和水域产生的生态效益占比最大,分别为64.90%、58.98%、46.98%。此外,不同省市单方水创造的生态效益价值不同,各评估时段北京、天津、河南、河北单方水创造的生态效益价值比分别为1∶2.10∶4.99∶3.74、1∶1.59∶3.66∶1.95、1∶0.17∶1.26∶1.35。研究成果可为南水北调已建工程以及其他大型跨流域引调水工程的生态效益评估提供案例参考,为中线水源区-受水区横向补偿标准建立提供科学支撑。
[Objective] This study aims to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the ecological benefits of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (SNWDP) by systematically quantifying the ecological benefits in the water-receiving areas during the first phase of the Middle Route Project. [Methods] The water receiving area was divided according to administrative units and assessed using statistical and remote sensing data. Taking 2014 as the base year and 2018, 2020, and 2023 as evaluation years, we evaluated the ecological benefits brought by project-supplied water in Beijing, Tianjin, 11 counties (or cities) of Henan, and 6 counties (or cities) of Hebei. Ecological benefit index systems were established for forest land, urban green space, wetlands, water bodies, and groundwater ecosystems by integrating the function value method and the equivalent factor method. For forest land, urban green space, and groundwater ecosystems, multiple ecosystem service functions were quantitatively analyzed. The market value method, replacement cost method, and other valuation methods were used to estimate the unit prices of each function and calculate their total service value. For wetlands and water body ecosystems, ecological benefits were calculated using the equivalent factor method based on regional characteristics. A spatiotemporal precipitation adjustment factor was introduced to dynamically adjust the factor values in the basic equivalent factor table, thereby determining the value of one standard unit of ecosystem service equivalent factor. [Results] Cumulative ecological benefits generated by the water supply from the first phase of the Middle Route Project amounted to 44.859, 18.328, and 37.102 billion yuan in each evaluation period, respectively. Wetlands and water bodies accounted for the largest proportions, at 64.90%, 58.98%, and 46.98%, respectively. From 2015 to 2018, new ecological benefits from water bodies and wetlands reached 24.724 and 4.391 billion yuan, respectively; for 2019-2020, they were 9.100 and 1.709 billion yuan; and from 2021 to 2023, new ecological benefits from wetlands and water bodies were 11.079 and 6.352 billion yuan, respectively. The annual average new ecological benefits for each period were 11.215, 9.164, and 12.367 billion yuan, indicating that the project’s water supply generated approximately 10 billion yuan of ecological benefits per year in the water receiving areas. In addition, the ecological benefit value per cubic meter of water varied across provinces and cities. In Beijing, the values were 1.64, 1.38, and 3.01 yuan; in Tianjin, 3.34, 2.19, and 0.52 yuan; in Henan’s 11 counties, 8.16, 5.06, and 3.79 yuan; and in Hebei’s 6 counties, 6.12, 2.69, and 4.07 yuan, respectively. The benefit value ratios for Beijing∶Tianjin∶Henan∶Hebei in each evaluation period were 1∶2.10∶4.99∶3.74, 1∶1.59∶3.66∶1.95, and 1∶0.17∶1.26∶1.35, respectively. [Conclusion] This study provides a case reference for ecological benefit evaluation the follow-up projects of the SNWDP and other inter-basin water diversion projects. It provides technical support for the scheduling and utilization of ecological benefits of the Middle Route Project, and further provides a calculation basis for promoting the establishment of horizontal ecological compensation standards between the water receiving and source areas.
南水北调中线工程 / 生态效益评价 / 指标体系 / 功能价值法 / 当量因子法 / 横向补偿标准
Middle Route Project of South-to-North Water Diversion / ecological benefit evaluation / indicator system / function value method / equivalent factor method / horizontal ecological compensation standards
| [1] |
吉蕾蕾. 南水北调工程综合效益显著[N]. 经济日报, 2024-12-15(11).
(
|
| [2] |
李建, 尹炜, 辛小康, 等. 南水北调工程生态环境效益评估方法研究[C]// 中国水利学会.中国水利学会2019学术年会论文集第五分册,宜昌, 2019年10月22-24日:535-542.
(
|
| [3] |
高媛媛, 杨亚锋, 杨荣雪, 等. 南水北调东线一期工程受水区生态环境效益演变[J]. 南水北调与水利科技(中英文), 2024, 22(3):566-574.
(
|
| [4] |
李佳, 姚建文, 陈桂芳, 等. 河南省南水北调中线一期工程受水区生态效益分析[C]// 中国水利学会.中国水利学会2018学术年会论文集第一分册,宜昌, 2018年10月20-22日:170-173.
(
|
| [5] |
曾子悦, 江磊, 许继军, 等. 南水北调中线工程受水区生态效益评价指标体系构建评估[J]. 长江技术经济, 2024, 8(4): 13-20.
(
|
| [6] |
徐新良, 刘纪远, 张树文, 等. 中国多时期土地利用土地覆被遥感监测数据集(CNLUCC)[R]. 北京: 中国科学院资源环境科学数据中心, 2018.
(
|
| [7] |
杨爱民, 张璐, 甘泓, 等. 南水北调东线一期工程受水区生态环境效益评估[J]. 水利学报, 2011, 42(5):563-571.
(
|
| [8] |
宋炜, 郑良勇, 侯新民. 南水北调济平干渠工程生态修复模式和效益研究[J]. 南水北调与水利科技, 2011, 9(1): 18-20.
(
|
| [9] |
蔡邦成, 陆根法, 宋莉娟, 等. 南水北调东线水源地保护区生态建设的生态经济效益评估[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(3): 384-387.
(
|
| [10] |
吴瑕. 南水北调中线工程对汉江中下游水环境影响研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉大学, 2010.
(
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
王效科, 杨宁, 吴凡, 等. 生态效益评价内容和评价指标筛选[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(15): 5442-5449.
(
|
| [13] |
张彩南, 张颖. 青海省祁连山国家公园生态系统服务价值评估研究[J]. 环境保护, 2019, 47(增刊1): 41-47.
(
|
| [14] |
李学锋, 宋伟, 王颖婕. 中国生态价值评价体系研究[J]. 福建论坛(人文社会科学版), 2019, 322(3):25-33.
(
|
| [15] |
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:A Framework for Assessment[M]. Washington DC: Island Press, 2003.
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
蔡晨茵, 赵立科, 徐慧, 等. 基于功能价值法的河流生态系统服务价值优化综合评估[J]. 水电能源科学, 2023, 41(9):44-47.
(
|
| [18] |
曾子悦, 许继军, 吴光东, 等. 南水北调中线一期工程生态效益评估:以北京市为例[J]. 南水北调与水利科技(中英文), 2022, 20(6):1168-1178.
(
|
| [19] |
谢高地, 鲁春霞, 冷允法, 等. 青藏高原生态资源的价值评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 2003, 18(2):189-196.
(
|
| [20] |
谢高地, 甄霖, 鲁春霞, 等. 一个基于专家知识的生态系统服务价值化方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2008, 23(5): 911-919.
(
Valuation of global ecosystem services by R Costanza(1997)has attracted attention of the Chinese ecological researchers over the years. And many Chinese scientists have been using the methods to valuate the ecosystem services for forest, grassland and farmland ecosystems. However, it has been turned out that there are several shortcomings in direct adaptation of the methods, for instance, some ecosystem services have been insufficiently valuated or even ignored via using Costanza’s method. To fill this gap, we have, on the basis of Costanza’s method, developed a new method or 'unit value’ based method for assessment of ecosystem services. Expert interviews with structured questionnaire were contacted in 2002 and 2007 respectively, and altogether 700 Chinese ecologists were involved in the interviews for testing the method. It has been found that the values of ecosystem services from expert knowledge based unit value method and biomass based method are comparative. Therefore, expert knowledge based assessment of ecosystem services could be used as a method for assessing ecosystem services with known land use areas, and a good result could be generated within a short period of time. However, for scientifically sound and concrete results, the spatial disparity of ecosystem services should be taken into account.
|
| [21] |
谢高地, 张彩霞, 张雷明, 等. 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, 2015, 30(8): 1243-1254.
(
Ecosystem service value is the base of decision-making for ecological protection, ecological regionalization and ecological compensation, and it appears the dynamic spatio-temporal changes which are closely connected with the variations of ecological structure and function. However, it is still lack of a universal and integrated dynamic evaluation method for ecosystem service value in China. Based on literature survey, expert knowledge, statistical data and remote sensing data, using model simulations and GIS spatial analysis method, this paper modified and developed the method for evaluating the value equivalent factor in unit area, and proposed an integrated method for dynamic evaluation on Chinese terrestrial ecosystem service value. This method can realize the comprehensive and dynamic assessment of ecosystem service value for 11 service types of 14 different types of terrestrial ecosystem at monthly and provincial scales in China. The preliminary application indicated that the total ecosystem service value was 38.1×10<sup>12</sup> yuan in 2010, in which the value from forest ecosystem was the highest, accounting for about 46%, followed by water body and grassland. Among different ecosystem service types, the contribution from regulation function was the highest, especially the values from hydrological regulation and atmospheric regulation which accounted for about 39.3% and 18.0% of total service value, respectively. Moreover, ecosystem service value presented apparent spatio-temporal patterns in China. Spatially, the ecosystem service value decreased from southeast to northwest and the highest value appeared in southeastern and southwestern regions. Temporally, the ecosystem service value for most of the ecosystems attained the peak in July and reached the trough during December and January except desert, barren and glacier ecosystem. Generally, although this established method still needs to be developed and optimized, it is the first to provide a relatively comprehensive approach for the spatio-temporal dynamic evaluation of ecosystem service value in China, which will be helpful to the scientific decision-making on natural capital rating and ecological compensation.
|
| [22] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
