吉林省森林生态系统服务价值评价

目的]对2009—2013年吉林省的森林生态系统服务价值进行评价,为森林生态系统的可持续经营和管理提供依据。方法]以第8次森林资源清查和吉林省林业调查规划院编制的8个林业局森林经营方案等数据为基础,建立森林生态系统服务评估指标体系和定量方法,采用价格倒算法推演森林涵养水源价格公式。结果](1)2013年吉林省森林生态系统服务总价值为13 801.35亿元。(2)森林生态系统各服务价值排序为净化大气环境(10 225.91亿元,占总服务价值的74.09%)生物多样性维护(1 063.27亿元,占7.70%)涵养水源(997.70亿元,占7.23%)保育土壤(941.61亿元,占6.82%)农田/草场防护(564.75亿元,占4.09%)固碳释氧(8.12亿元,占0.06%)。结论]在吉林省森林生态系统服务价值中,以净化大气环境、生物多样性维护和涵养水源服务价值最高。倒算法推演得到的结果较以往研究更贴合实际,有力地提升了森林涵养水源价值核算的准确性和合理性,也使森林涵养水源价值研究评价方法更加科学。

Evaluation on Service Value of Forest Ecosystem in Jilin Province

Objective] The aim of this study is to service value of evaluate forest ecosystem in Jilin Province from 2009 to 2013, in order to provide the basis for sustainable operation and management of forest ecological system.Methods] Data was collected from the eighth forest resources inventory and forest management plan of eight forestry bureau in Jilin Province. Forest ecosystem services evaluation index system and quantitative methods was established. The equation of price on forest water conservation was deduced using price calculation.Results] (1) Forest ecosystem services value was 1 380.135 billion yuan in 2013 in Jilin Province.(2) The value of forest ecosystem services was ranked as:purify the atmosphere environment(1 022.591 billion yuan, accounting for 74.09% of the total service value) > biodiversity maintenance(106.327 billion yuan, accounting for 7.70%) > water conservation(99.77 billion yuan, accounting for 7.23%) > soil conservation(94.161 billion yuan, accounting for 6.82%) > farmland/pasture protection(56.475 billion yuan, accounting for 4.09%) > carbon release oxygen(812 million yuan, accounting for 0.06%).Conclusion] To purify the atmosphere environment, biodiversity maintenance and water conservation in the total service value was highest in Jilin Province. The theory and method of market price was more realistic than previous research result, and effectively improve the accuracy and rationality of water conservation forest value accounting, also make the research on forest water conservation value evaluation method was more rational.