基于土地生态敏感性评价的生态产品价值分区实现研究——以阿勒泰市为例

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000－6060.2023.206

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

良好的生态环境是维持人类生存与发展的基础，是国家生态文明建设的重要前提。利用GIS技术对阿勒泰市的生态环境进行敏感性评价。结果表明：（1）阿勒泰市生态环境敏感性影响程度由大到小排序为：土地利用类型>植被覆盖度>河流缓冲区>道路缓冲区>高程>坡度>坡向。（2）阿勒泰市生态敏感性总体偏高，极度敏感和高度敏感等级区域占研究区总面积的42.45%，在北部山区、中部丘陵区，以及南部额尔齐斯河两岸均有分布；不敏感等级和低度敏感等级区域主要分布在中部丘陵和山间冲积平原区。（3）基于生态敏感性评价结果将阿勒泰市分生态保护区、生态提升区以及生态防护治理区3个区域，并根据区域特点提出完善生态补偿、特色生态旅游、生态农业、开展生态治理与修复等生态产品价值实现模式，为阿勒泰市生态产品价值实现提供实践参考。

关键词: 生态敏感性评价, 生态产品, 生态分区, 价值实现模式, 阿勒泰市

Abstract:

A beautiful ecological environment is critical to the sustainable survival and development of humans and is a prerequisite for China’s ecological civilization. The sensitivity evaluation of the ecological environment in Altay City, Xinjiang, China was performed using GIS software. The results are as follows: (1) The degree of sensitivity impact on the ecological environment in Altay City is ranked from large to small: land-use type>vegetation coverage>river buffer zone>road buffer zone>elevation>slope>aspect. (2) The overall ecological sensitivity of Altay City is high. Areas with high sensitivity or above account for 42.45% of the total study area and are mainly distributed in the northern mountainous and central hilly areas and around the Ertix River. Areas with low sensitivity levels are mainly distributed in the central hills and mountainous alluvial plains. (3) Based on the ecological sensitivity evaluation results, Altay City is divided into three regions: ecological protection zone, ecological improvement zone, and ecological protection and governance zone. Ecological product value realization models should be proposed on the basis of the characteristics of each zone, such as improving ecological compensation, distinctive ecological tourism, ecological agriculture, and conducting ecological governance and restoration, providing practical reference for the realization of ecological product value in Altay City.

Key words: ecological sensitivity assessment, ecological products, ecological zoning, value realization mode, Altay City

闫天亮, 王承武, 陈梦茜, 陈暄, 赵文静. 基于土地生态敏感性评价的生态产品价值分区实现研究——以阿勒泰市为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(4): 612-621.

YAN Tianliang, WANG Chengwu, CHEN Mengxi, CHEN Xuan, ZHAO Wenjing. Implementation of ecological product value zoning based on land ecological sensitivity assessment: Using Altay City as an example[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2024, 47(4): 612-621.

图/表 9

图1

表1

表2

图2

表3

图3

图4

图5

表4

参考文献 24

[1]	欧阳志云, 王效科, 苗鸿. 中国生态环境敏感性及其区域差异规律研究[J]. 生态学报, 2000, 20(1): 9-12.
	[Ouyang Zhiyun, Wang Xiaoke, Miao Hong. China’s eco-environmental sensitivity and its spatial heterogeneity[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2000, 20(1): 9-12. ]
[2]	张林波, 虞慧怡, 李岱青, 等. 生态产品内涵与其价值实现途径[J]. 农业机械学报, 2019, 50(6): 173-183.
	[Zhang Linbo, Yu Huiyi, Li Daiqing, et al. Connotation and value implementation mechanism of ecological products[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2019, 50(6): 173-183. ]
[3]	李振亚, 魏伟, 周亮, 等. 中国陆地生态敏感性时空演变特征[J]. 地理学报, 2022, 77(1): 150-163. doi: 10.11821/dlxb202201011
	[Li Zhenya, Wei Wei, Zhou Liang, et al. Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of terrestrial ecological sensitivity in China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2022, 77(1): 150-163. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb202201011
[4]	李洪庆, 杨瑀, 张俊红. 雅鲁藏布江山南宽谷流域生态安全格局构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(9): 1503-1513.
	[Li Hongqing, Yang Yu, Zhang Junhong. Construction of ecological security pattern in Shannan Wide Valley Basin of Yarlung Zangbo River[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(9): 1503-1513. ]
[5]	陈瑶瑶, 罗志军, 齐松, 等. 基于生态敏感性与生态网络的南昌市生态安全格局构建[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(4): 342-349.
	[Chen Yaoyao, Luo Zhijun, Qi Song, et al. Ecological security pattern construction of Nanchang City based on ecological sensitivity and ecological network[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 28(4): 342-349. ]
[6]	肖荣波, 欧阳志云, 王效科, 等. 中国西南地区石漠化敏感性评价及其空间分析[J]. 生态学杂志, 2005, 24(5): 551-554.
	[Xiao Rongbo, Ouyang Zhiyun, Wang Xiaoke, et al. Sensitivity of rocky desertification and its spatial distribution in southwestern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2005, 24(5): 551-554. ]
[7]	刘培亮, 曹雪莹, 毛慧娟, 等. 国家级重点生态功能区的生态敏感性变化分析——以湖南省麻阳县为例[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2021, 43(9): 1151-1158.
	[Liu Peiliang, Cao Xueying, Mao Huijuan, et al. Analysis of ecological sensitivity changes in national key ecological functional areas: Taking Mayang County of Hunan Province as an example[J]. Environmental Pollution & Control, 2021, 43(9): 1151-1158. ]
[8]	丁徽, 赵小敏, 郭熙, 等. 江西省鄱阳湖区生态敏感性评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(1): 257-264.
	[Ding Hui, Zhao Xiaomin, Guo Xi, et al. Evaluation of ecological sensitivity in Poyang Lake Area of Jiangxi Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 27(1): 257-264. ]
[9]	梅堂军. 基于GIS技术的生态敏感度分区研究——以恩施州清江流域为例[J]. 中外建筑, 2014(1): 69-72.
	[Mei Tangjun. Regional research of ecological sensitivity based on GIS techniques: Take Qing River Area in Enshi for example[J]. Chinese and Overseas Architecture, 2014(1): 69-72. ]
[10]	陈谢扬, 李同昇, 朱小青, 等. 基于实际调查与观测解译对比验证的土地沙漠化敏感性评价——以陕西省为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(11): 1813-1825.
	[Chen Xieyang, Li Tongsheng, Zhu Xiaoqing, et al. Evaluation of land desertification sensitivity based on comparison and verification of actual investigation and observation interpretation: A case of Shaanxi Province[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(11): 1813-1825. ]
[11]	张涵. 基于生态敏感性评价的河流型湿地生态修复策略研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2021.
	[Zhang Han. Ecological restoration strategy of river wetland based on ecological sensitivity evaluation: A case study of Changxing wetland country park in Yongding River, Beijing[D]. Beijing: Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2021. ]
[12]	丁鸿浩, 赖宁静, 邓林昊, 等. 基于AHP-TOPSIS最优组合赋权的闽侯县生态敏感性评价[J]. 中国城市林业, 2022, 20(3): 94-101.
	[Ding Honghao, Lai Ningjing, Deng Linhao, et al. Ecological sensitivity evaluation of Minhou County based on AHP-TOPSIS optimal combination weighting[J]. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry, 2022, 20(3): 94-101. ]
[13]	张广创, 王杰, 刘东伟, 等. 基于GIS的锡尔河中游生态敏感性分析与评价[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(2): 506-513.
	[Zhang Guangchuang, Wang Jie, Liu Dongwei, et al. Analysis and evaluation of the ecological sensitivity in the middle reaches of the Syr Darya River based on GIS[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(2): 506-513. ]
[14]	亚库普·约麦尔, 阿里木江·卡斯木. 喀什市土地利用变化下的生态敏感性研究[J]. 生态科学, 2016, 35(2): 19-25.
	[Yuemaier Yakupu, Kasimu Alimujiang. Ecological sensitivity analysis of land use change in Kashgar City[J]. Ecological Science, 2016, 35(2): 19-25. ]
[15]	白天, 王鑫宇, 吴雅文, 等. 基于GIS-FLUS的漯河市域生态敏感性时空演变特征研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 37(4): 710-719.
	[Bai Tian, Wang Xinyu, Wu Yawen, et al. Study of temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of ecological sensitivity in Luohe District based on GIS and FLUS[J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 37(4): 710-719. ]
[16]	李广娣, 冯长春, 曹敏政. 基于土地生态敏感性评价的城市空间增长策略研究——以铜陵市为例[J]. 城市发展研究, 2013, 20(11): 69-74.
	[Li Guangdi, Feng Changchun, Cao Minzheng. Study of urban spatial growth strategy based on ecological sensitivity assessment: A case study of Tongling[J]. Urban Development Studies, 2013, 20(11): 69-74. ]
[17]	蔡博峰, 穆彬, 方皓, 等. 基于自组织神经网络的生态敏感性分区——以北京市房山区为例[J]. 中国环境科学, 2008, 28(4): 375-379.
	[Cai Bofeng, Mu Bin, Fang Hao, et al. Ecological sensitivity division based on SOM: A case study of Fangshan District in Beijing[J]. China Environmental Science, 2008, 28(4): 375-379. ]
[18]	周宾, 魏丽, 王瑛, 等. 模糊综合评价在青藏铁路西格段沿线生态环境影响评价中的应用[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2007, 19(3): 43-45.
	[Zhou Bin, Wei Li, Wang Ying, et al. Application on fuzzy synthetical evaluation in ecology environment impact assessment along the Xining-Golmud section among the Qinghai-Tibet railway[J]. The Administration and Technique of Environmental Monitoring, 2007, 19(3): 43-45. ]
[19]	徐长林. 坡向对青藏高原东北缘高寒草甸植被构成和养分特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(4): 26-35. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2015481
	[Xu Changlin. Variations in vegetation composition and nutrient characteristics related to aspect in an alpinemeadow in the northeast margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(4): 26-35. ] doi: 10.11686/cyxb2015481
[20]	谢高地, 张昌顺, 张林波, 等. 保持县域边界完整性的中国生态区划方案[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(1): 154-162.
	[Xie Gaodi, Zhang Changshun, Zhang Linbo, et al. China’s county-scale ecological regionalization[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27(1): 154-162. ]
[21]	Omernik J M, Bailey R G. Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions[J]. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2010, 33(5): 935-949.
[22]	方敏. 生态产品价值实现的浙江模式和经验[J]. 环境保护, 2020, 48(14): 25-27.
	[Fang Min. Zhejiang model and experience of realizing ecological product value[J]. Environmental Protection Science, 2020, 48(14): 25-27. ]
[23]	周宏轩, 王昭清, 濮宏桐, 等. 基于植被区划和生态敏感性的中国煤矿生态恢复策略[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2022, 50(7): 145-156.
	[Zhou Hongxuan, Wang Zhaoqing, Pu Hongtong, et al. Ecological restoration strategies for coal mines in China based on vegetation zones and ecological sensitivity[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2022, 50(7): 145-156. ]
[24]	梁静一, 吴柏清. 基于功能性和敏感性的洛阳市生态分区研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(12): 16-22.
	[Liang Jingyi, Wu Baiqing. Research on ecological zoning of Luoyang City based on functionality and sensitivity[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 61(12): 16-22. ]

目标层	准则层	指标层	不敏感	轻度敏感	中度敏感	高度敏感	极度敏感	参考依据
生态环境敏感性综合评价	地形地貌因子	高程/m	<500	500~1000	1000~1500	1500~2000	>2000	梅堂军^[9]
		坡度/(°)	<8	8~15	15~25	25~45	>45	刘培亮等^[7]
		坡向	平地、正南	东南、西南	正东、正西	东北、西北	正北	张涵^[11]
	生态环境因子	河流缓冲区/m	>1000	800~1000	500~800	200~500	<200	丁鸿浩等^[12]
	生态环境因子	植被覆盖度	<0.2	0.2~0.4	0.4~0.6	0.6~0.8	>0.8	张广创等^[13]
	人类活动因子	土地利用类型	人造地表裸地	耕地	草地	林地	水体、湿地等	亚库普·约麦尔等^[14]
	人类活动因子	道路缓冲区/m	>1200	1200~900	900~600	600~300	<300	白天等^[15]

评级因子			AHP 权重	CRITIC 权重	综合权重
目标层	准则层	指标层	AHP 权重	CRITIC 权重	综合权重
生态环境敏感性综合评价	地形地貌因子	高程	3.11	21.08	8.50
		坡度	4.52	12.68	6.97
		坡向	3.55	8.82	5.13
	生态环境因子	河流缓冲区	12.14	16.48	13.44
	生态环境因子	植被覆盖度	23.33	6.23	18.20
	人类活动因子	土地利用类型	43.97	15.45	35.41
	人类活动因子	道路缓冲区	9.38	19.26	12.35

评价指标		不敏感		低度敏感		中度敏感		高度敏感		极度敏感
评价指标		面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%
单因子	高程	1305.89	12.10	3940.95	36.52	1218.21	11.29	1230.41	11.40	3095.43	28.69
	坡度	5624.73	52.20	2091.23	19.41	1780.36	16.52	1208.12	11.21	68.92	0.64
	坡向	1772.75	16.45	2860.19	26.54	2531.51	23.49	2425.57	22.51	1183.34	10.98
	河流缓冲区	6360.49	58.94	798.98	7.40	1281.63	11.88	1374.24	12.74	972.96	9.02
	植被覆盖度	3838.39	35.57	1834.80	17.00	1798.75	16.67	1687.69	15.64	1631.73	15.12
	土地利用类型	3099.52	28.72	1172.34	10.86	4442.44	41.17	1538.49	14.26	538.14	4.99
	道路缓冲区	7085.61	65.66	833.94	7.73	894.37	8.29	957.46	8.87	1019.52	9.45
综合	综合敏感性	1956.30	18.15	1551.33	14.40	2689.04	24.95	2946.40	27.34	1627.83	15.11

二级分区	面积/km²	不敏感占比/%	低度敏感占比/%	中度敏感占比/%	高度敏感占比/%	极度敏感占比/%
Ⅰ₁-北部山地生态保护区	3815.74	0.00	0.01	0.26	0.42	0.30
Ⅰ₂-额河流域生态保护区	573.15	0.08	0.08	0.16	0.41	0.28
Ⅱ₁-中部低山生态提升区	2509.99	0.07	0.15	0.35	0.33	0.11
Ⅱ₂-两河流域生态提升区	1794.28	0.11	0.38	0.34	0.14	0.03
Ⅲ₁-额河冲积平原生态防护治理区	1557.87	0.74	0.21	0.04	0.01	0.00
Ⅲ₂-准噶尔盆地边缘生态防护治理区	528.92	0.74	0.17	0.08	0.01	0.00