生态系统服务净价值核算方法及其对北京市人工林项目的评估
|
摘要
生态系统服务价值评估是评价自然生态系统和人工生态系统经济价值的重要方法,是生态学和地理学研究的重要领域.然而,任何价值的形成都免不了成本投入,学术界普遍使用的生态系统服务价值评估方法忽略了生态系统在形成这些服务功能时的成本投入(包括直接投入成本、资源占用成本、风险成本等),计算得出的服务价值必然会夸大自然和人工生态系统、以及维护和恢复生态系统相关措施的经济学意义,给土地利用规划造成混乱,影响了国民经济发展规划的科学性和可行性.为了探索基于可持续发展目标的土地规划的有效方法,该研究在生态系统服务价值概念的基础上,提出了生态系统服务净价值评估方法,并以北京市人工林项目为例,解释了这一方法的应用原理及其意义.通过生态系统服务净价值评估,可以比较分析不同土地利用方式产生的最大净收益,为土地的资源化利用、工农业项目、以及生态环保项目的科学规划和评估提供决策依据,并为社会经济可持续发展、以及国民经济发展规划提供科学依据.
Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, and valuation of these services provides support for land-use decisions. The most common approach to identifying these tradeoffs is called "payment for ecosystem services"(PES), and when this approach is carefully applied, it has the potential to enhance how ecosystem services are used and improve their protection by signaling the development of a scarcity of environmental resources. However, this approach often ignores the opportunity costs of these services, thereby making the net benefit of the ecosystem services and their responses to land-use change unclear. Therefore, there must be a fuller accounting for both the costs and the benefits of various alternatives, and such an accounting must become the basis for developing policy, reaching ethical decisions, and taking appropriate actions. Through the evaluation of net value of ecosystem services, we can compare the maximum net benefits of alternative land uses, thereby providing basis for decision-making during land use planning, industrial and agricultural programs and ecological and environmental restoration programs as well as socioeconomic and national economic development planning. To address this need, a new approach based on determining the net value of ecosystem services(NES) should be developed to provide a more rigorous comparison of the consequences of land-use change. This approach reveals large differences between the values of a given land use when opportunity costs are and are not accounted for. To illustrate the new approach, here, we use the example of the Beijing Plains Afforestation Project to illustrate the benefits of accounting for the direct and opportunity costs of alternative land uses based on changes in ecosystem services, thereby determining the net value of these services and providing better support for land-use planning and policy development. For this project, we calculated the NES resulting from ecological restoration by comparing the current program of restoration via afforestation with alternatives such as restoration based on the conservation of natural vegetation and management of a farmland ecosystem. The results shows that the ecosystem service values of creating a large-scale artificial forest ecosystem through afforestation may be strongly negative in the short run when we account for the opportunity costs of this strategy. Evaluating the long-term effects is currently not possible, as this will require data from monitoring the afforestation project to determine how the ecosystem services values provided by the artificial forest evolve over time. Therefore, the results of such approaches absolutely will exaggerate the value of natural and artificial ecosystem as well as the economic significance of related measures to maintain and restore the ecosystem and will cause the disruption of the land use planning, affecting the scientific and feasible planning of national economic development. Given the complexity of predicted future climate change and the wide range of landscape-, regional-, and global-scale factors that affect ecosystem services, managers must work harder to identify and quantify the tradeoffs among ecological and socioeconomic benefits, and particularly the trade-offs between short-term benefits(which often drive political decisions) and long-term benefits(which determine the sustainability of human civilization). The challenges for future research will be to account for the problems described in this paper, particularly in terms of the trade-offs among competing objectives, identifying and quantifying opportunity costs for all stakeholders, and providing improved versions of the NES model that account for more factors, using more reliable and fine-grained data.
Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, and valuation of these services provides support for land-use decisions. The most common approach to identifying these tradeoffs is called "payment for ecosystem services"(PES), and when this approach is carefully applied, it has the potential to enhance how ecosystem services are used and improve their protection by signaling the development of a scarcity of environmental resources. However, this approach often ignores the opportunity costs of these services, thereby making the net benefit of the ecosystem services and their responses to land-use change unclear. Therefore, there must be a fuller accounting for both the costs and the benefits of various alternatives, and such an accounting must become the basis for developing policy, reaching ethical decisions, and taking appropriate actions. Through the evaluation of net value of ecosystem services, we can compare the maximum net benefits of alternative land uses, thereby providing basis for decision-making during land use planning, industrial and agricultural programs and ecological and environmental restoration programs as well as socioeconomic and national economic development planning. To address this need, a new approach based on determining the net value of ecosystem services(NES) should be developed to provide a more rigorous comparison of the consequences of land-use change. This approach reveals large differences between the values of a given land use when opportunity costs are and are not accounted for. To illustrate the new approach, here, we use the example of the Beijing Plains Afforestation Project to illustrate the benefits of accounting for the direct and opportunity costs of alternative land uses based on changes in ecosystem services, thereby determining the net value of these services and providing better support for land-use planning and policy development. For this project, we calculated the NES resulting from ecological restoration by comparing the current program of restoration via afforestation with alternatives such as restoration based on the conservation of natural vegetation and management of a farmland ecosystem. The results shows that the ecosystem service values of creating a large-scale artificial forest ecosystem through afforestation may be strongly negative in the short run when we account for the opportunity costs of this strategy. Evaluating the long-term effects is currently not possible, as this will require data from monitoring the afforestation project to determine how the ecosystem services values provided by the artificial forest evolve over time. Therefore, the results of such approaches absolutely will exaggerate the value of natural and artificial ecosystem as well as the economic significance of related measures to maintain and restore the ecosystem and will cause the disruption of the land use planning, affecting the scientific and feasible planning of national economic development. Given the complexity of predicted future climate change and the wide range of landscape-, regional-, and global-scale factors that affect ecosystem services, managers must work harder to identify and quantify the tradeoffs among ecological and socioeconomic benefits, and particularly the trade-offs between short-term benefits(which often drive political decisions) and long-term benefits(which determine the sustainability of human civilization). The challenges for future research will be to account for the problems described in this paper, particularly in terms of the trade-offs among competing objectives, identifying and quantifying opportunity costs for all stakeholders, and providing improved versions of the NES model that account for more factors, using more reliable and fine-grained data.
引文
1 Tallis H,Kareiva P,Marvier M,et al.An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2008,105:9457-9464
2 Zheng H,Wang G.Achieving ecological restoration by working with local people:A Chinese scholar seeks win-win paths.Ecol Soc,2014,19:35
3 Kinzig A,Perrings C,Chapin F,et al.Paying for ecosystem services-promise and peril.Science,2011,334:603-604
4 Mc Carthy D,Donald P,Scharlemann J,et al.Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets:Current spending and unmet needs.Science,2012,338:946-949
5 Costanza R,de Groot R,Sutton P,et al.Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.Glob Environ Change,2014,26:152-158
6 Bateman I,Harwood A,Mace G,et al.Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making:Land use in the United Kingdom.Science,2013,341:45-50
7 Polasky S,Lewis D,Planting A,et al.Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2014,111:6248-6253
8 Naidoo R,Ricketts T.Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.PLo S Biol,2006,4:e360
9 Li C,Zheng H,Li S,et al.Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2015,112:7396-7401
10 Tilman D,Cassman K,Matson P.Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.Nature,2002,418:671-677
11 Daily G,Ouyang Z,Zheng H,et al.Securing natural capital and human well-being:innovation and impact in China.Acta Ecol Sin,2013,33:677-685
12 Zheng H,Robinson B,Liang Y,et al.Benefits,costs,and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2013,110:16681-16686
13 Goldstein J,Pejchar L,Daily G.Using return-on-investment to guide restoration:A case study from Hawaii.Conserv Lett,2008,1:236-243
14 Chen Z,Chen G,Chen B,et al.Net ecosystem services value of wetland:Environmental economic account.Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat,2009,14:2837-2843
15 Liu J,Yang W.Water sustainability for China and beyond.Science,2012,337:649-650
16 Costanza R,Arge R,Groot R,et al.The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature,1997,387:253-260
17 Xiao Y,Xie G D,An K,et al.Ecosystem services of wheat-maize cropland systems in the North China Plain(in Chinese).Chin J Eco-Agric,2011,19:429-435[肖玉,谢高地,安凯,等.华北平原小麦-玉米农田生态系统服务评价.中国生态农业学报,2011,19:429-435]
18 Lei N,Zhang Y Q,Wu B,et al.The farm shelter-forests ecosystem services valuation in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain(in Chinese).Heilongjiang Agric Sci,2011,7:82-85[雷娜,张宇清,吴斌,等.黄淮海平原农田防护林生态服务价值研究.黑龙江农业科学,2011,7:82-85
19 LüW,Hu M,Hu J J,et al.Discussion on severity and control of Asian longhorned beetle of poplar trees in the Three Norths Protection Forest Program(in Chinese).For Sci Tech,2004,58:39-41[吕文,胡莽,胡建军,等.三北防护林杨树天牛的危害与防治.防护林科技,2004,58:39-41]
20 Jiang Y Y,Zeng J,Lu M H,et al.Occurrence trend forecast of major diseases and insect pests of main crops in China in 2014(in Chinese).Plant Protect,2014,40:1-4[姜玉英,曾娟,陆明红,等.2014年全国主要粮食作物重大病虫害发生趋势预报.植物保护,2014,40:1-4]
21 Tian G H,Yang S.Characteristic of forest fire in 31 provinces in China.For Prev,2013,2:10-14[田国华,杨松.我国31个地区森林火灾时空分布特征.森林防火,2013,2:10-14]
22 Qiao Y Q,Wang J Z,Li J.The summary and reflection of Beijing’s plain reforestation-taking Qingyundian of Daxing District as an example(in Chinese).For Econ,2014,4:17-19[乔永强,王金增,李静.北京平原造林工程实施成效总结与反思-以大兴区青云店平原造林工程为例.林业经济,2014,4:17-19]
23 Zhang J,Zhao T,Jiang C,et al.Opportunity cost of water allocation to afforestation rather than conservation of natural vegetation in China.Land Use Policy,2016,50:67-73
24 Cao S,Ma H,Yuan W,et al.Interaction of ecological and social factors affects vegetation recovery in China.Biol Conserv,2014,180:270-277
25 Lawler J J,Lewis D J,Nelson E,et al.Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2014,111:7492-7497
26 Mittermeier R,Mittermeier C G,Brooks T M P,et al.Wilderness and biodiversity conservation.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2003,100:10309-10313
27 Birch J C,Newton A C,Aquino C A,et al.Cost-effectiveness of dry-land forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2010,107:21925-21930
28 Corbera E,Pascual U.Ecosystem services:Heed social goals.Science,2012,335:655-656
29 Jack B K,Kousky C,Sims K.Designing payments for ecosystem services:Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2008,105:9465-9470
30 Foley J A,De Fries R,Asner G P,et al.Global consequences of land use.Science,2005,309:570-574
2 Zheng H,Wang G.Achieving ecological restoration by working with local people:A Chinese scholar seeks win-win paths.Ecol Soc,2014,19:35
3 Kinzig A,Perrings C,Chapin F,et al.Paying for ecosystem services-promise and peril.Science,2011,334:603-604
4 Mc Carthy D,Donald P,Scharlemann J,et al.Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets:Current spending and unmet needs.Science,2012,338:946-949
5 Costanza R,de Groot R,Sutton P,et al.Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.Glob Environ Change,2014,26:152-158
6 Bateman I,Harwood A,Mace G,et al.Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making:Land use in the United Kingdom.Science,2013,341:45-50
7 Polasky S,Lewis D,Planting A,et al.Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2014,111:6248-6253
8 Naidoo R,Ricketts T.Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.PLo S Biol,2006,4:e360
9 Li C,Zheng H,Li S,et al.Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2015,112:7396-7401
10 Tilman D,Cassman K,Matson P.Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.Nature,2002,418:671-677
11 Daily G,Ouyang Z,Zheng H,et al.Securing natural capital and human well-being:innovation and impact in China.Acta Ecol Sin,2013,33:677-685
12 Zheng H,Robinson B,Liang Y,et al.Benefits,costs,and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2013,110:16681-16686
13 Goldstein J,Pejchar L,Daily G.Using return-on-investment to guide restoration:A case study from Hawaii.Conserv Lett,2008,1:236-243
14 Chen Z,Chen G,Chen B,et al.Net ecosystem services value of wetland:Environmental economic account.Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat,2009,14:2837-2843
15 Liu J,Yang W.Water sustainability for China and beyond.Science,2012,337:649-650
16 Costanza R,Arge R,Groot R,et al.The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature,1997,387:253-260
17 Xiao Y,Xie G D,An K,et al.Ecosystem services of wheat-maize cropland systems in the North China Plain(in Chinese).Chin J Eco-Agric,2011,19:429-435[肖玉,谢高地,安凯,等.华北平原小麦-玉米农田生态系统服务评价.中国生态农业学报,2011,19:429-435]
18 Lei N,Zhang Y Q,Wu B,et al.The farm shelter-forests ecosystem services valuation in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain(in Chinese).Heilongjiang Agric Sci,2011,7:82-85[雷娜,张宇清,吴斌,等.黄淮海平原农田防护林生态服务价值研究.黑龙江农业科学,2011,7:82-85
19 LüW,Hu M,Hu J J,et al.Discussion on severity and control of Asian longhorned beetle of poplar trees in the Three Norths Protection Forest Program(in Chinese).For Sci Tech,2004,58:39-41[吕文,胡莽,胡建军,等.三北防护林杨树天牛的危害与防治.防护林科技,2004,58:39-41]
20 Jiang Y Y,Zeng J,Lu M H,et al.Occurrence trend forecast of major diseases and insect pests of main crops in China in 2014(in Chinese).Plant Protect,2014,40:1-4[姜玉英,曾娟,陆明红,等.2014年全国主要粮食作物重大病虫害发生趋势预报.植物保护,2014,40:1-4]
21 Tian G H,Yang S.Characteristic of forest fire in 31 provinces in China.For Prev,2013,2:10-14[田国华,杨松.我国31个地区森林火灾时空分布特征.森林防火,2013,2:10-14]
22 Qiao Y Q,Wang J Z,Li J.The summary and reflection of Beijing’s plain reforestation-taking Qingyundian of Daxing District as an example(in Chinese).For Econ,2014,4:17-19[乔永强,王金增,李静.北京平原造林工程实施成效总结与反思-以大兴区青云店平原造林工程为例.林业经济,2014,4:17-19]
23 Zhang J,Zhao T,Jiang C,et al.Opportunity cost of water allocation to afforestation rather than conservation of natural vegetation in China.Land Use Policy,2016,50:67-73
24 Cao S,Ma H,Yuan W,et al.Interaction of ecological and social factors affects vegetation recovery in China.Biol Conserv,2014,180:270-277
25 Lawler J J,Lewis D J,Nelson E,et al.Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2014,111:7492-7497
26 Mittermeier R,Mittermeier C G,Brooks T M P,et al.Wilderness and biodiversity conservation.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2003,100:10309-10313
27 Birch J C,Newton A C,Aquino C A,et al.Cost-effectiveness of dry-land forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2010,107:21925-21930
28 Corbera E,Pascual U.Ecosystem services:Heed social goals.Science,2012,335:655-656
29 Jack B K,Kousky C,Sims K.Designing payments for ecosystem services:Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2008,105:9465-9470
30 Foley J A,De Fries R,Asner G P,et al.Global consequences of land use.Science,2005,309:570-574