World Regional Studies ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 56-66.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2023.05.2021539
Previous Articles Next Articles
Jianfeng PAN1(), Yuewei MA1(), Yan CHEN1, Siqing CAI2, Yumei CHEN1
Received:
2021-07-31
Revised:
2021-11-30
Online:
2023-05-15
Published:
2023-06-09
Contact:
Yuewei MA
潘健峰1(), 马月伟1(), 陈艳1, 蔡思青2, 陈玉美1
通讯作者:
马月伟
作者简介:
潘健峰(1995—),男,硕士研究生,研究方向为生态系统服务,E-mail:1035340867@qq.com。
基金资助:
Jianfeng PAN, Yuewei MA, Yan CHEN, Siqing CAI, Yumei CHEN. Comparing analysis on social values of ecosystem services in China and US National Park:[J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(5): 56-66.
潘健峰, 马月伟, 陈艳, 蔡思青, 陈玉美. 中美国家公园生态系统服务社会价值对比研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(5): 56-66.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://sjdlyj.ecnu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2023.05.2021539
社会价值类型 | 社会价值定义 |
---|---|
美学价值 Aesthetic* | 景色美丽、气味芬芳、水色一天等 |
生物多样性价值 Biodiversity* | 有大量的动植物 |
文化价值Cultural | 文化氛围浓厚,给予知识与智慧 |
经济价值Economic | 可以提供木材、渔业、矿产,以及旅游机会 |
未来价值Future | 具有让下一代人了解与体验公家公园的价值 |
历史价值Historic | 具有自然和人类历史的地方和事物 |
固有价值Intrinsic | 具有内外在美,无论其是否展示出来 |
教育价值Learning | 提供了科学观察、实验、学习的机会 |
生命可持续价值Life sustaining | 具有保持水土、涵养水分、净化空气的能力 |
游憩价值Recreation* | 提供户外活动、娱乐的场地 |
精神价值Spiritual | 可以感受到大自然的魅力,净化心灵 |
治疗价值Therapeutic | 可以锻炼身体,舒缓身心,释放压力 |
Tab.1 Definition of social value types of ecosystem services
社会价值类型 | 社会价值定义 |
---|---|
美学价值 Aesthetic* | 景色美丽、气味芬芳、水色一天等 |
生物多样性价值 Biodiversity* | 有大量的动植物 |
文化价值Cultural | 文化氛围浓厚,给予知识与智慧 |
经济价值Economic | 可以提供木材、渔业、矿产,以及旅游机会 |
未来价值Future | 具有让下一代人了解与体验公家公园的价值 |
历史价值Historic | 具有自然和人类历史的地方和事物 |
固有价值Intrinsic | 具有内外在美,无论其是否展示出来 |
教育价值Learning | 提供了科学观察、实验、学习的机会 |
生命可持续价值Life sustaining | 具有保持水土、涵养水分、净化空气的能力 |
游憩价值Recreation* | 提供户外活动、娱乐的场地 |
精神价值Spiritual | 可以感受到大自然的魅力,净化心灵 |
治疗价值Therapeutic | 可以锻炼身体,舒缓身心,释放压力 |
图层名称 | 类型 | 普达措国家公园 | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园 | 精度 |
---|---|---|---|---|
社会价值点 | 矢量 | 问卷调查并通过ArcGIS进行矢量化 | 问卷调查并通过ArcGIS进行矢量化 | — |
道路 | 矢量 | 水经注 (www.rivermap.cn) | — | — |
水体 | 矢量 | 水经注 (www.rivermap.cn) | 美国地质勘探局国家水文数据集(apps.nationalmap.gov) | — |
高程 | 栅格 | 地理数据空间云(www.gscloud.cn) | 美国地质勘探局国家高程数据集(seamless.usgs.gov) | 30米 |
距道路的距离 | 栅格 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | 美国地质勘探局道路指示项目数据集(rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov) | 30米 |
距水体的距离 | 栅格 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | 30米 |
Tab.2 The source of spatial data
图层名称 | 类型 | 普达措国家公园 | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园 | 精度 |
---|---|---|---|---|
社会价值点 | 矢量 | 问卷调查并通过ArcGIS进行矢量化 | 问卷调查并通过ArcGIS进行矢量化 | — |
道路 | 矢量 | 水经注 (www.rivermap.cn) | — | — |
水体 | 矢量 | 水经注 (www.rivermap.cn) | 美国地质勘探局国家水文数据集(apps.nationalmap.gov) | — |
高程 | 栅格 | 地理数据空间云(www.gscloud.cn) | 美国地质勘探局国家高程数据集(seamless.usgs.gov) | 30米 |
距道路的距离 | 栅格 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | 美国地质勘探局道路指示项目数据集(rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov) | 30米 |
距水体的距离 | 栅格 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | ArcGIS工具中的欧氏距离运算 | 30米 |
社会价值 | 普达措国家公园 | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
社会价值点数/% | 价值指数 | R值 | Z值 | 社会价值点数/% | 价值指数 | R值 | Z值 | |||
美学价值* | 226 (11.8%) | 7 | 0.748 | -7.244 | 466 (20.4%) | 10 | 0.412 | -24.265 | ||
生物多样性价值* | 241 (12.6%) | 8 | 0.667 | -9.902 | 242 (10.6%) | 7 | 0.444 | -16.544 | ||
文化价值 | 124 (6.5%) | 9 | 0.625 | -7.982 | 72 (3.1%) | 4 | 0.757 | -3.938 | ||
经济价值 | 139 (7.3%) | 5 | 0.717 | -6.392 | 85 (3.7%) | 5 | 0.610 | -6.876 | ||
未来价值 | 173 (9.0%) | 8 | 0.366 | -15.951 | 273 (11.9%) | 9 | 0.490 | -11.115 | ||
历史价值 | 121 (6.3%) | 8 | 0.708 | -6.126 | 99 (4.3%) | 5 | 0.736 | -5.020 | ||
固有价值 | 87 (4.5%) | 6 | 0.398 | -10.725 | 124 (5.4%) | 7 | 0.603 | -8.450 | ||
教育价值 | 119 (6.2%) | 7 | 0.625 | -7.819 | 70 (3.0%) | 5 | 0.811 | -3.017 | ||
生命可持续价值 | 182 (9.5%) | 7 | 0.721 | -7.190 | 238 (10.4%) | 7 | 0.477 | -15.426 | ||
游憩价值* | 258 (13.5%) | 10 | 0.645 | -10.892 | 393 (17.2%) | 8 | 0.432 | -21.533 | ||
精神价值 | 80 (4.2%) | 8 | 0.317 | -11.679 | 77 (3.4%) | 4 | 0.699 | -5.046 | ||
治疗价值 | 165 (8.6%) | 8 | 0.674 | -7.992 | 150 (6.6%) | 6 | 0.584 | -9.728 |
Tab.3 Spatial clustering results of social values
社会价值 | 普达措国家公园 | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
社会价值点数/% | 价值指数 | R值 | Z值 | 社会价值点数/% | 价值指数 | R值 | Z值 | |||
美学价值* | 226 (11.8%) | 7 | 0.748 | -7.244 | 466 (20.4%) | 10 | 0.412 | -24.265 | ||
生物多样性价值* | 241 (12.6%) | 8 | 0.667 | -9.902 | 242 (10.6%) | 7 | 0.444 | -16.544 | ||
文化价值 | 124 (6.5%) | 9 | 0.625 | -7.982 | 72 (3.1%) | 4 | 0.757 | -3.938 | ||
经济价值 | 139 (7.3%) | 5 | 0.717 | -6.392 | 85 (3.7%) | 5 | 0.610 | -6.876 | ||
未来价值 | 173 (9.0%) | 8 | 0.366 | -15.951 | 273 (11.9%) | 9 | 0.490 | -11.115 | ||
历史价值 | 121 (6.3%) | 8 | 0.708 | -6.126 | 99 (4.3%) | 5 | 0.736 | -5.020 | ||
固有价值 | 87 (4.5%) | 6 | 0.398 | -10.725 | 124 (5.4%) | 7 | 0.603 | -8.450 | ||
教育价值 | 119 (6.2%) | 7 | 0.625 | -7.819 | 70 (3.0%) | 5 | 0.811 | -3.017 | ||
生命可持续价值 | 182 (9.5%) | 7 | 0.721 | -7.190 | 238 (10.4%) | 7 | 0.477 | -15.426 | ||
游憩价值* | 258 (13.5%) | 10 | 0.645 | -10.892 | 393 (17.2%) | 8 | 0.432 | -21.533 | ||
精神价值 | 80 (4.2%) | 8 | 0.317 | -11.679 | 77 (3.4%) | 4 | 0.699 | -5.046 | ||
治疗价值 | 165 (8.6%) | 8 | 0.674 | -7.992 | 150 (6.6%) | 6 | 0.584 | -9.728 |
社会价值 | 普达措国家公园贡献度/% | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园贡献度/% | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DTR | DTW | ELEV | DTR | DTW | ELEV | |
美学价值 | 39.0 | 53.4 | 7.6 | 30.6 | 13.3 | 56.1 |
生物多样性价值 | 34.2 | 58.1 | 7.7 | 30.4 | 18.2 | 42.4 |
游憩价值 | 36.0 | 59.5 | 4.6 | 21.6 | 25.1 | 53.3 |
Tab.4 The contribution degree of environmental variables in Pudacuo National Park and Pike and San Isabel National Forests
社会价值 | 普达措国家公园贡献度/% | 圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园贡献度/% | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DTR | DTW | ELEV | DTR | DTW | ELEV | |
美学价值 | 39.0 | 53.4 | 7.6 | 30.6 | 13.3 | 56.1 |
生物多样性价值 | 34.2 | 58.1 | 7.7 | 30.4 | 18.2 | 42.4 |
游憩价值 | 36.0 | 59.5 | 4.6 | 21.6 | 25.1 | 53.3 |
1 | 黄宝荣, 王毅, 苏利阳, 等. 我国国家公园体制试点的进展、问题与对策建议. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(1): 76-85. |
HUANG B, WANG Y, SU L, et al. Pilot programs for national park system in China: Progress, problems and recommendations. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33(1): 76-85. | |
2 | 张业臣, 张宏梅, 虞虎. 基于游客感知的生态系统服务社会价值评估——以钱江源国家公园为例. 旅游科学, 2020, 34(6): 66-85. |
ZHANG Y, ZHANG H, YU H. Evaluation of the social value of ecosystem services based on tourists' perception:A case study of Qianjiangyuan National Park. Tourism Science, 2020, 34(6): 66-85. | |
3 | 徐昔保, 杨桂山, 江波. 湖泊湿地生态系统服务研究进展. 生态学报, 2018, 38(20): 7149-7158. |
XU X, YANG G, JIANG B. Progress in lake-wetland ecosystem services. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(20): 7149-7158. | |
4 | ZHOU L, GUAN D, HUANG X, et al. Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecological Indicators, 2020, 114: 106286. |
5 | 郭楠. 他山之石与中国道路:美中国家公园管理立法比较研究. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(8): 35-42. |
GUO N. Outside the box and China's path: A comparative analysis between US-China national parks regulation. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(8): 35-42. | |
6 | 王毅,黄宝荣.中国国家公园体制改革:回顾与前瞻.生物多样性, 2019, 27(2): 117-122. |
WANG Y, HUANG B. Institutional reform for building China's national park system: Review and prospects. Biodiversity Science,2019,27(2): 117-122. | |
7 | 臧振华, 张多, 王楠, 等. 中国首批国家公园体制试点的经验与成效、问题与建议. 生态学报, 2020, 40(24): 8839-8850. |
ZANG Z, ZHANG D, WANG N, et al. Experiences, achievment,problems and recommendations of the first batch of China's national park system poilts. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(24): 8839-8850. | |
8 | 田瑾,明庆忠.国外山地旅游研究热点、进展与启示.世界地理研究,2020,29(5):1071-1081. |
TIAN J, MING Q. Hotspots, progress and enlightenments of foreign mountain turisim reserach.World Regional Studies,2020,29(5):1071-1081. | |
9 | 何建立.中国国家森林公园与美国国家公园规划建设与管理的比较研究.成都:四川农业大学,2016. |
HE J.Hotspots, progress and enlightenments of foreign mountain turisim reserach.Chengdu:Sichuan Agricultural University, 2016. | |
10 | MILFONT T L. A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 2006, 38(6): 745-767. |
11 | 徐建英, 王清, 魏建瑛. 卧龙自然保护区生态系统服务福祉贡献评估:当地居民的视角. 生态学报, 2018, 38(20): 7348-7358. |
XU J, WANG Q, WEI J. Assessment of the contribution to human well-being by ecosystem services in Wolong Natural Reserve from the perspective of local communities. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(20): 7348-7358. | |
12 | Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis.Washington: New Island Press,2005. |
13 | 董连耕, 朱文博, 高阳, 等. 生态系统文化服务研究进展. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 50(6): 1155-1162. |
DONG L, ZHU W, GAO Y, et al. Research progress in Culture Ecosystem Services(CES) and its development trend. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2014, 50(6): 1155-1162. | |
14 | JALIGOT R, CHENAL J. Stakeholders' perspectives to support the integration of ecosystem services in spatial planning in Switzerland. Environments, 2019, 6(8): 88. |
15 | 周晓芳. 从恢复力到社会——生态系统:国外研究对我国地理学的启示. 世界地理研究, 2017, 26(4): 156-167. |
ZHOU X. From resilience to social-ecological systems:What did the western research tell us about the Chinese geography. World Regional Studies, 2017, 26(4): 156-167. | |
16 | SHERROUSE B, CLEMENT J, SEMMENS D. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 2010, 31(2): 748-760. |
17 | JOHNSON D, VAN RIPER C, CHU M, et al. Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 2019, 37: 100919. |
18 | GROOT R S, WILSON M, BOUMANS R. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 2002, 41(3): 393-408. |
19 | BROWN G, HAUSNER V, GRODZIŃSKA-JURCZAK M, et al. Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2015, 28: 89-104. |
20 | CHEN F, WU J, LIU J, et al. Comparison of social-value cognition based on different groups: The case of Pulau Payar in Malaysia and Gili Matra in Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage, 2019, 173: 1-9. |
21 | SHERROUSE B, SEMMENS D, CLEMENT J. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indicators, 2014, 36: 68-79. |
22 | CONDRO A, PRASETYO L, RUSHAYATI S, et al. Predicting hotspots and prioritizing protected areas for endangered primate species in indonesia under changing climate. Biology, 2021, 10(2): 154. |
23 | 高艳, 刘康, 马桥, 等. 基于SolVES模型与游客偏好的生态系统服务社会价值评估——以太白山国家森林公园为例. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(12): 3564-3573. |
GAO Y, LIU K, MA Q, et al. Assessment of social value of ecosystem services based on SolVES model and visitor's preference: A case study of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 36(12): 3564-3573. | |
24 | 马桥, 刘康, 高艳, 等. 基于SolVES模型的西安浐灞国家湿地公园生态系统服务社会价值评估. 湿地科学, 2018, 16(1): 51-58. |
MA Q, LIU K, GAO Y, et al. Assessment on social values of ecosystem services in Xi'an Chanba National Wetland Park based on SolVES model. Wetland Science, 2018, 16(1): 51-58. | |
25 | ZALEJSKA-JONSSON A, WILKINSON S, WAHLUND R. Willingness to pay for green infrastructure in residential development--A consumer perspective. Atmosphere, 2020, 11(2): 152. |
26 | 霍思高,黄璐,严力蛟.基于SolVES模型的生态系统文化服务价值评估:以浙江省武义县南部生态公园为例.生态学报,2018,38(10):3682-3691. |
HUO S, HUANG L, YAN L.Valuation of cultural ecosystem services based on SolVES: A case study of the South Ecological Park in Wuyi County,Zhejiang Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(10): 3682-3691. | |
27 | WILSON R, HEBERT L, SCHERR P, et al. Educational attainment and cognitive decline in old age. Neurology, 2009, 72(5): 460-465. |
28 | TRIPATHI R, KNUSEL K, EZALDEIN H, et al.Association of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with differences in use of outpatient dermatology services in the United States.JAMA Dermatology,2018,154(11): 1286-1291. |
29 | ZHANG H, HUANG R, ZHANG Y, et al. Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: A review. Tourism Geographies, 2020, 24(10):1-23. |
[1] | Jiabao ZHANG, En WU. Recreation function in national parks based on tourists' perceived value: Two case studies of Yellowstone National Park and Wuyishan National Park [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(2): 146-157. |
[2] | Jun CAO, Zhengdong ZHANG, fengyan CUI, Sonja CHEN, Yang YANG, Tengfei KUANG, Yuchan CHEN. Response of ecosystem services to landscape pattern changes in the New York Bay Area from 1996 to 2015 [J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(4): 826-838. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||