用户名: 密码: 验证码:
东北林区经营单位级森林可持续经营监测评价
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
森林经营单位是开展森林可持续经营实践的基础和落脚点,森林监测是实现森林可持续经营的重要保障。因此,对经营单位森林经营的全过程进行监测,获取森林状况和经营活动所产生影响的第一手资料,评价其现状、预测其未来的发展趋势,不断调整和控制森林经营活动,使之按照预定轨迹发展,是实现森林可持续经营的重要的支撑和保障之一。但目前对森林监测的研究与评价,在范围上偏向于大尺度的国家级、区域级监测,在监测内容上主要以资源监测为主、辅以有限的生态状况监测。虽然一些研究机构和学者也开展了森林经营单位水平森林可持续经营的标准与指标研究,但缺乏具体实证研究,因为具体指标的量化及评价方法一直是难以解决的问题。
     本研究在控制论原理的指导下,对构建森林经营单位级的森林综合监测与评价体系进行了探讨。运用扎根理论分析方法,针对中国东北林区实际提出了森林综合监测评价指标体系框架。利用德尔菲法,确定了适用于森林经营单位水平的综合监测评价指标及其权重;建立了涵盖监测与评价指标、实施方法的森林综合监测与评价体系。选取穆棱林业局开展实证研究,对该局森林可持续状况进行了综合分析和评价。
     本研究的主要成果和发现包括:
     第一,本研究构建了森林综合监测评价指标体系框架。以森林可持续经营的内涵和目标为基础,依据森林可持续经营的目标和建立指标体系的基本原则,首次运用扎根理论分析方法,对适用于我国东北林区的5个森林可持续经营标准进行了定量和定性的统计分析,并构建了在内容上涵盖资源、环境、经济和社会4个方面的综合监测评价指标体系框架;
     第二,对东北地区森林经营单位森林经营管理活动可能产生的环境、社会和经济方面的影响,及其影响程度进行了综合分析,建立了森林经营活动影响矩阵,明确了应重点进行监测和评价的领域。并针对所建立的监测与评价指标体系,利用德尔菲法,广泛获取了专家咨询意见,最终确定了监测评价指标,以及这些指标的权重。该指标体系包含森林资源、环境、社会和经济目标层,一级评价指标层(10个指标)、二级评价指标层(24个指标)、监测指标层(36个指标类),共四个层次,以确保能够实现全面而综合的监测;
     第三,提出了森林综合监测的实施方法与评价方法。实施方法包括各监测指标评价指标的监测方法、监测周期、监测点设计及监测保障部门的安排。评价方法包括综合指数评价方法的介绍、评价参照值的选取以及各级评价指标值的计算;
     第四,选取黑龙江省穆棱林业局开展实证研究,对所建立的森林经营单位水平的监测与评价体系进行运用与测试。在此过程中,对穆棱林业局的森林监测与评价现状,以及其经营实践进行分析,建立了穆棱林业局森林综合监测与评价体系。并利用穆棱森林经营2000-2010年经理期内的综合监测数据和部分现实评价数据进行了森林可持续经营综合分析与评价。通过分析,得到最终的综合评价指数值为0.775,其中森林资源指数值0.839,环境评价指数0.714,社会评价指数0.733,经济评价指数0.820。这些与森林可持续经营目标值大于或等于1相比,已经非常接近,因此可以认为穆棱林业局的森林经营已经趋向森林可持续经营状态,但暂时还未完全达到森林可持续经营状态。
     本文的研究和分析最终显示,建立的森林经营单位级的综合监测与评价体系,能够适应森林经营单位的具体情况,并应用于森林经营单位。具体表现为:所选取的监测与评价指标,能够反映森林经营单位的经营活动,以及所造成的影响;所提出的实施方法,能够贴合森林经营单位的生产实践,经过整合,融入森林经营单位已经开展的监测与评价活动中;所提出的对监测数据的综合分析与评价方法,能够实现对森林经营单位经营水平的评价,监测和评价结果可以给森林经营单位提供参考和决策的依据,帮助提高和改进其森林经营措施。此体系能够作为一项重要工具,在森林经营单位开展和推广,以促进我国的森林可持续经营。
     该森林综合监测评价体系,既基于森林经营单位水平,又是一个涵盖森林资源、环境、经济和社会的综合监测体系,具有创新性。
Forest management unit (FMU) is the cornerstone of forest management practice. Therefore, tomonitor the whole process of forest management at FMU level consists of the key point torealize the sustainable forest management (SFM). This refers to through the monitoring andassessment activities to understand forest conditions and impacts of forest managementactivities, further evaluate of the current situation and predict its future trends, and timelyamend the management plan and related forest management activities. However, the currentsystem, to a large degree, attach more attention to large-scale national and regional level forestmonitoring and assessment, rather than FMU, and resource monitoring supported by thelimited ecological status has been considered as the major aspect. Despite the research on thisissue conducted by some research institutions and scholars, the absence of specific empiricalresearch due to the quantification of monitoring indicators and evaluation methods do pose anumber of significant challenges.
     Based on the theory and objectives of SFM, this paper studied and established an integratedforest monitoring and assessment system (IFMAS) targeting FMU level. Through thecomprehensive analysis, a Northeast China FMU level IFMAS was proposed, which wasfurther tested at Muling Forestry Bureau in Heilongjiang province. Based on the monitoringdata of this Bureau, the paper made an overall assessment. The outcomes and the majorfindings of the study include:
     (i) Combined with grounded theory to analyze the5key sustainable forest managementstandards suitable to the Forest in Northeast China, i.e. Montreal International process standardand indicators, Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management, Northeast ForestIndicators of Sustainable Forest Management, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principlesand Criteria, and China forest certification standard. And on the basis of this, the study putforward a preliminary framework for monitoring and assessment indicators;
     (ii) Made a comprehensive analysis on impacts of forest management activities in the areas ofenvironment, society and economy and set up an impacts matrix of forest managementactivities. Through a consultation process with key forestry experts, the study selected andidentified the monitoring and assessment indicator, and finally put forward an completeintegrated monitoring and assessment indicators, and their weight;
     (iii) Proposed a set of monitoring methods, monitoring cycle, monitoring supportive system,and evaluation methods, and further built up a sustainable forest management integratedmonitoring and assessment index system at FMU level for the forest in Northeast China. Thesystem consists of forest resources, the environment, social and economic objectives layer, athe evaluation indexes layer (10indicators), two evaluation index layer (24indicators),monitoring indicators layer (36Indicator), a total of four levels;
     (iiii) Conducted a empirical study on the established system at Muling Forestry Bureau inHeilongjiang Province, i.e. setup a integrated monitoring and assessment system applied to thepractice of Muling Forestry Bureau, and made a compressive assessment based on themonitoring data in its2000-2010management period. Through Synthetical Index Method, itsuggested the final comprehensive evaluation index is0.775, and forest resources index valueis0.839, environment evaluation index is0.714, social evaluation index is0.733, andeconomic evaluation is0.820. Because of the given threshold to reach SFM is1, a gap exists inthe Bureau and it cannot fully to achieve sustainable forest management yet.As a conclusion, the system can be applied at FMUs, which means, the selected indicators canreflect their management activities and the relevant impacts, the implementation methods canbe adapted to their practice, and the assessment method can also become an instrument toappraisal their performance. Therefore, the system is worthy to be spread nationwide topromote SFM in China.
     In terms of the innovations, the established integrated system targets to FMU level, and coverforest resources, environment, economy and society. Its study methodology has made use ofthe control theory, grounded method and impact matrix. Therefore, it has realized the innovations in both studying content and methods.
引文
Anon,1996. Report of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Working Group on Criteria and Indicatorsfor the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (‘the MontrealProcess’). Liaison Office, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Canada.1996.
    Anon.1998. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests. InternationalTropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Policy Development Series7.
    David G. Brand,1997. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Ustainable Management of Forests:Progress to Date and Future Directions Biontus. Biomass and Bioenergy Volume13, Issues4-5,1997,Pages247-253.
    Food and Agriculture Organization. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: ACompendium.2001. FAO, Rome.
    Food and Agriculture Organization.Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission: Development of National-LevelCriteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests of Asia: Workshop Report.2000.Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific:Bangkok, Thailand.
    Forest Stewardship Council,1994. Forestry stewardship principles and criteria for natural forestmanagement. Forestry Stewardship Council. Oaxaca, Mexico.
    Forest Stewardship Council,2011. Global FSC certificates: type and distribution, Bonn, December. Bonn,Germany.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.,1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago.271pp.
    Hahn-Schilling, B., Heuveldop, J., Palmer, J.,1994. A comparative study of evaluation systems forsustainable forest management (including principles, criteria and indicators) In: J. Heuveldop (Ed.),Assessment of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management (A Contribution to the Development ofConcept and Procedure). Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Forest-und Holzwirtschaft, Hamburg, pp.3–36.
    Hickey G. M., Innes J. L.&Kozak R. A.,2006. Monitoring and information reporting for sustainable forestmanagement: An inter-jurisdictional comparison of soft law standards [J]. Forest Policy and Economics,2006,9(4):297-315.
    Hickey, G.M.,2004. Monitoring and information reporting for sustainable forest management in NorthAmerica and Europe: requirements, practices and perceptions. Ph.D. Thesis. University of BritishColumbia, Canada.435pp.
    Hickey, G.M., Innes, J.L., Kozak, R.A., Bull, G.Q., Vertinsky, I.,2005. Monitoring and information reportingfor sustainable forest management: an international multiple case study analysis. Forest Ecology andManagement209(3),237-259.
    Innes, J.L., Hickey, G.M.,2005. Certification of forest management and wood products. In: Innes, J.L.,Hickey, G.M., Hoen, H.F.(Eds.), Forestry and Environmental Change: Socioeconomic and PoliticalDimensions. IUFRO Research Series II, CABI Publishing, Oxford.256pp.
    International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO),1992. Criteria for the Measurement of SustainableTropical Forest Managemmt. ITTO, Yokohama. Japan.
    John P. Holdren, Gretchen C. Daily,1996. The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects, Definingand Measuring Sustainability. New York: The Biogeophysical Foundations.
    Johnson, T.1999. Community-based forest management in the Philippines. Journal of Forestry97(11):26-30.
    Lammerts van Bueren, E.M., Blom, E.M.,1996. Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of SustainableForest Management Standard.
    Lisbon1998. Liaison Unit Vienna of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe;Maxergasse2; A-1030Vienna; Austria.
    Meidinger, E.E.,2003. Forest certification as a Global Civil Society Regulatory Institution. In: Meidinger,E.E., Elliott, C., Oesten, G.(Eds.), Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification.Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany, pp.265–-289.
    Mendoza, G. A., R. Prabhu, D. Sukadri, H, Purnomo, and H. Hartanto.1998. Manual: Using multi-criteriaanalysis as decision tool for applying the CIFOR generic C&I template. CIFOR Special Publication.
    Meridian Institute,2001. Comparative analysis of the Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable ForestryInitiative.[http://www.merid.org/comparison/].
    Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe.2000. General Declarations and Resolutions.Adopted at the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe: Strasbourg1990,Helsinki1993.
    Peterson, D. L., D. Silsbee, and D. L. Schmoldt.1994. A case study of resource management planning withmultiple objectives. Environmental Management18(5):729-742.
    Prabhu, R., C. Colfer, and R. G. Dudley.1998. Guidelines for developing, testing and selecting criteria andindicators for sustainable forest management. CIFOR Special Publication.
    Prabhu, R., C. Colfer, P. Venkateswarlu, L. C. Tan, R. Soekmadi, and E. Wollenberg.1996. Testing Criteriaand Indicators for The Sustainable Management Of Forests. Phase I.
    Ruth Nussbaum, Markku Simula,2004. The Forest Certification Handbook. United Kingdom, Oxford:Routledge.
    Shannon, M.1987. Fore planning: Learning with people. Pages233-252. In M. L. Miller, R. P. Gale, and P. J.Brown (eds.), Social science in natural resources management systems. Westview Press, Boulder,Colorado.
    The Montréal Process,2009. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management ofTemperate and Boreal Forests. Tokyo Japan: MontréAl Process Liaison Office.
    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,1992. Authoritative and non-legally bindingstatement of principles for the conservation and sustainable management of all types of forests.
    Wijewar dana, D, S., J. Caswell and C. Palmberg-Lerche. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement. In: Ecoregional review. Proceedings of the XI World Forestry Congress. Antalya, Turkey,October13-22,1997:3-17.
    Worldwide Foundation for Nature/World Bank Global Forest Alliance,2006. A Framework for AssessingCredible Forest Certification Systems/Schemes. Washington, DC:WWF/World Bank Global ForestAlliance.
    曹利军.可持续发展评价理论与方法[M].北京:科学出版社.1999:3-25.
    邓华锋.森林生态系统经营综述[J].世界林业研究.1998(4):9-17.
    狄文彬.东北过伐林区林分级森林生态系统经营标准与指标的研究[D].北京林业大学.2006:33-34.
    高瑞馨,王凤友.林业可持续发展指标体系和综合评价研究概述[J].防护林科技.2005,67(4):38-41.
    高瑞馨.林口林业局可持续发展综合评价指标体系研究[D].东北林业大学.2004:27-29.
    郭建宏.福建中亚热带经营单位水平森林可持续经营评价研究[D].福建农林大学.2003:13-15.
    国家林业局.中国森林保护与可持续经营国家报告[R].北京.2003:7-19.
    郝克嘉,鲁法典,房用,周传庆.德尔菲法在杨树人工林认证内部评审过程中的应用—以山东省费县为例[D].林业经济问题.2011,31(1):80-86.
    黄金诚.中国海南岛热带森林可持续经营研究[D].中国林业科学研究院.2006:21-23.
    黄清麟.森林可持续经营综述[J].福建林学院学报.1999,19(3):282-285.
    纪忠雄,宋亚莉.德国人工林营造和森林资源管理[J].国际学术动态.2006(2):12-18.
    姜春前.临安示范林森林可持续经营标准、指标与可持续性分析[D].中国林业科学研究院.2003:7-27.
    蒋有绪.国际森林可持续经营问题的进展[J].资源科学,2000,22(6):77-82.
    蒋有绪.森林可持续经营与林业可持续发展.世界林业研究[J].2001,14(2):1-8.
    亢新刚.森林资源经营管理[M].中国林业出版社.2001:1-256.
    雷恒池,曾庆存,李仑格,朱江.从自然控制论看黄河上游人工增雨气候与环境研究[J].2001,6(4):391-399.
    雷静品,江泽平,肖文发,黄选瑞.中国区域水平森林可持续经营标准与指标体系研究[J].西北林学院学报.2009,24(4):228-233.
    雷静品,肖文发,黄选瑞,黄清麟."森林可持续经营标准与指标体系研究的最新进展.世界林业研究.2004,17(6):1-7.
    雷静品.森林可持续经营国际进程回顾与展望——里约会议20周年[J].林业经济,2013(2):121-128.
    李长胜,邓宝忠.龙江县可持续发展指标体系的研究[J].哈尔滨师范大学自然科学学.2007,123(5):103-108.
    李金良,郑小贤,王昕.东北过伐林区林业局级森林生物多样性指标体系研究[J].北京林业大学学报.2003,25(1):48-53.
    李景文.森林生态学[M].北京:中国林业出版社.1994:35.
    李靖.黑龙江穆棱市林业局森林蓄积量估测模型研究[D].北京林业大学.2012:25-27.
    刘华,陈永富,鞠洪波,雷渊才.美国森林资源监测技术对我国森林资源一体化监测体系建设的启示[J].世界林业研究.2012,25(6):64-69.
    刘岚,徐月明.瑞典国家森林资源调查林业勘查设计[J].1983(3):63-68.
    刘小丽,张守攻,徐斌.符合森林认证要求的森林综合监测体系的构[J].林业科技开发.2012,26(6):1-4.
    刘小丽,郑小贤,徐斌,黄文彬.FSC在我国的发展现状与趋势分析[J].北京林业大学学报(社会科学版).2010,(9)3:86-91.
    刘小丽.符合FSC认证要求的森林与监测评价体系的研建[D].北京林业大学.2010:21-23.
    陆文明.森林认证对森林经营和林产品贸易的影响[J].林业科技管理.2001(4):12-18.
    陆元昌,曾伟生,雷相东.森林与湿地资源综合监测指标与技术体系[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2011.
    罗仙仙,亢新刚.森林资源综合监测研究综述浙江林学院学报[J].2008,25(6):803-809.
    马阿滨,王伟英,孙宝刚.黑龙江森工林区可持续发展指标体系与评价研究[J].林业科学.2004,40(2).
    马茂江,张文,万国礼.德国森林资源调查与监测对我国的启示[J].四川林勘设计.2008,6(2):9-12.
    孟宪宇.测树学[M].北京:中国林业出版社.2006:25-107.
    聂祥永.瑞典国家森林资源清查的经验与借鉴[J].林业资源管理.2004(1):66-72.
    潘丽琴.小流域森林资源评价研究[D].西南林学院.2006:11-17.
    曲松.帽儿山实验林场森林质量评价的研究[D].东北林业大学.2008:67-68.
    邵青还.对近自然林业理论的诠释和对我国林业建设的几项建议[J].世界林业研究.2003,16(6):1-5.
    舒清态,唐守正.国际森林资源监测的现状与发展趋势[J].世界林业研究.2005,18(3):33-37.
    孙玉军等.资源环境监测与评价[M].北京:高等教育出版社.2007:3-95.
    唐守正.中国森林资源及其对环境的影响[J].科学对社会的影响.2001(3):26-33.
    田军,张朋柱,王刊良,汪应洛.基于德尔菲法的专家意见集成模型研究[J].系统工程理论与实践.2004(1):57-68.
    万百五.控制论创立60年.控制理论与应用[J].2008,25(4):597-601.
    王海飙,董希斌,刘美爽.森林生态采伐评价指标计量方法[J].东北林业大学学报.2008,36(5):72-76.
    王晓慧,黄清麟,2005.森林可持续经营标准与指标中水土保持指标的研究[J].水土保持研究.2005(1):79-83.
    王彦辉,肖文发,张星耀,2007.森林健康监测与评价的国内外现状和发展趋势[J].林业科学.2007(7):78-86.
    王忠仁,韩爱惠.德国奥地利森林资源监测与经营管理的特点及启示[J].林业资源管理.2007(3):103-109.
    韦希勤.美国森林资源调查方法的变化对我们的启示[J].中南林业调查规划.2005,24(2):42-47.
    肖风劲,欧阳华,傅伯杰,牛海山.森林生态系统健康评价指标及其在中国的应用[J].地理学报.2003,58(6):803-809.
    肖兴威.中国森林资源与生态状况综合监测体系建设的战略思考[J].林业资源管理.2004,(3)2-5.
    肖羽柏.控制论在林业中应用的研究[J].世界林业研究.1996(4):28-32.
    徐斌.森林可持续经营的认证机制及中国森林认证可行性研究[D].中国林业科学院.2000:37-95
    闫宏伟,黄国胜,曾伟生,聂祥永,高显连.全国森林资源一体化监测体系建设的思考[J].林业资源管理.2011(6):6-13.
    杨馥宁.江西省靖安县森林可持续经营模式研究[D].北京林业大学.2008:31-32.
    杨建洲.森林可持续经营的基本途径[J].林业经济,2001(9):27-29.
    叶绍明.广西桉树工业人工林经营模式研究[D].北京林业大学.2007:25.
    岳宝昌,石凤鸣.穆棱林业局林业可持续发展试验示范区建设的构思与实践[J].林业科技管理.1999(3):36-41.
    曾庆存.正在兴起的前沿领域——自然控制论[J].中国科学报.1995,(4)10:21-27
    曾庆存.自然控制论[J].气候与环境研究.1996,1(1):11-20.
    张会儒,唐守正,王彦辉.德国森林资源和环境监测技术体系及其借鉴[J].世界林业研究.2002,15(2):64-72.
    张会儒.森林可持续经营的重要保障——森林资源综合监测探讨[J].林业科学研究.2008,21(增刊):95-99.
    张绍朋.穆棱林业局森林生态旅游资源概述及旅游前景预测.林业勘查设计.2012(2):47-50.
    张守攻,姜春前.森林可持续经营的标准与指标的发展[M].沈国舫主编.中国森林:26-53.
    张守攻,肖文发,雷静品,黄选瑞.中国东北林区森林可持续经营指标体系(LY/T1874-2010).北京:全国森林可持续经营和认证标准化委员会.2010:3-7.
    张守攻,朱春全,肖文发.森林可持续经营导论[M].中国林业出版社,2001.
    张守攻,肖文发,江泽平,刘金龙,朱春全,减润国,陆文明,史作民,雷静品,孙晓梅,姜春前,马娟,黄清鳞.中国森林可持续经营标准与指标(LY/T1594-2002).北京:中国林业科学研究院.2002:3-7.
    张新欣,郑小贤,徐斌.国内森林经营单位FSC森林认证结果分析.林业调查规划.2007,32(2):72-79.
    赵艳萍.经营单位水平森林可持续经营能力评价系统的研建[D].福建农林大学.2006:10-13.
    郑小贤.德国、奥地利和法国的多目的森林资源监测述评[J].北京林业大学学报,1997,19(3):79-84.
    郑小贤.美国国有林生态系统经营[J].北京林业大学学报.1998,20(4):110-115.
    中国科学院可持续发展战略研究组.中华人民共和国可持续发展国家报告[R].中国环境科学出版社.2002.
    中国可持续发展林业战略研究项目组,2002.中国可持续发展林业战略研究总论[M].中国林业出版社.2002.
    中国森林认证国家标准制订小组.《中国森林认证》国家标准编制说明[R].2012:1-8.
    周光辉,曾伟生,陈雪峰.我国森林资源和生态状况监测存在的问题与对策[J].中南林业调查规划.2006,25(4):1-6.
    朱国宇,熊伟.模糊评价法与综合指数法在生态影响后评价中的应用比较研究[J].东北林业大学学报.2011,42(2):54-58.

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700