基于"重要性-脆弱性-服务价值"的国土空间生态保护与修复管控

国土空间生态保护修复是维护国家生态安全格局的重要保障,科学划定与管控保护修复关键区对维持区域生态系统功能与可持续发展具有重要意义。该研究以福建上杭县作为典型研究案例区,在综合生态系统完整性、系统性与生态效益的基础上,构建了"重要性-脆弱性-服务价值"（I-F-V）的多维生态系统测度框架,进而分析了区域生态系统的多维特征、测度因子间的权衡与协同关系,运用空间聚类（分组分析）划定了生态保护与修复空间,并基于各分区的空间分异性及生态系统结构特征,提出分区管控措施。结果表明：1）上杭县生态系统具有较强的空间异质性,整体上呈现重要性较高、脆弱性程度低、服务价值较高的空间分异格局;2）上杭县各生态系统测度因子间协同与权衡关系并存,综合重要性、脆弱性和服务价值之间均为协同关系,生态系统保护与修复区域可能存在高度重叠;3）上杭县可划分为III-I-V（中等重要-一般脆弱-极高价值）、III-III-V（中等重要-中等脆弱-极高价值）、III-II-V（中等重要-较为脆弱-极高价值）、III-III-IV（中等重要-中等脆弱-较高价值）、II-III-I（较为重要-中等脆弱-低价值）和IV-I-I（高度重要- 一般脆弱-低价值）6个分区,其中,III-I-V和III-II-V两个分区面积较大,是区域发展的生态系统功能基底,各分区所在的土地覆被类型构成也存在明显的空间异质性,林地、灌丛、耕地和园地属于优势土地覆被类型;4）依据生态保护与修复措施将研究区进一步划分为生态保护区（生态保育区、绿色发展区、适度开发区）和生态修复区（生态修复区、保护修复统筹发展区）。研究结果可为区域国土空间生态保护修复规划与建设、生态安全格局维护提供较为科学、全面的研究思路和实践借鉴。

Ecological protection and restoration management of territorial space management of territorial space using "Importance, Fragility, Ecosystem service value"

Ecological protection and restoration of territorial space can be one of the most important schemes to maintain the national patterns of ecological security. It is a high demand to scientifically zone and manage the key areas for the protection and restoration, particularly for the regional ecosystem function and sustainable development. Taking Shanghang County in Fujian Province of China as a typical study area, this study aims to construct a multi-dimensional ecosystem measurement framework of "Ecosystem Importance-Ecosystem Fragility-Ecosystem service value" using an integrated ecosystem integrity, system, and benefits. Multi-dimensional characteristics of the regional ecosystem were then analyzed to determine the relationship of trade-offs and synergy between the measure factors. At last, the spatial clustering method (Grouping analysis) was used to delineate the ecological protection and restoration space. The zoning management and control strategies were also proposed using the spatial heterogeneity and ecosystem structure characteristics of each zone. The results showed that: 1) There was the strong spatial heterogeneity in the ecosystem, indicating a spatial differentiation ecosystem pattern with the high importance, low fragility, and high service value. 2) There were the synergistic and tradeoff relationships among all ecosystem measure factors. All synergistic relationships were found in the comprehensive importance, fragility, and service value. As such, the high overlap was triggered between the ecosystem conservation and restoration areas. 3) An optimal number of clusters was determined as six, according to the CONTAG and COHESION indexes with different number of clusters. There were also the strongest cohesion degree and connectivity among groups, which were conducive to the stable and healthy development of the ecosystem. Six zonings were divided into: the III-I-V (Importance level III- Fragility level I-Value V), III-III-V (Importance level III- Fragility level III-Value V), III-II-V (Importance level III- Fragility level II-Value V), III-III-IV (Importance level III- Fragility level III-Value IV), II-III-I(Importance level II- Fragility level III-Value I), and IV-I-I (Importance level IV- Fragility level I-Value I). Among them, the zoning of III-I-V and III-II-V shared the large areas with the ecosystem functional bases for the regional development. The outstanding spatial heterogeneity was found in the composition of land cover types in each zoning. Particularly, the forest, shrub, cropland, and garden were the dominant land cover types. 4) A targeted and differentiated management was proposed for the environmental protection and restoration measures, according to the spatial distribution and internal structure of each zoning. After that, the study area was further divided into the ecological protection area (Ecological conservation, green development, and moderate development area), and ecological restoration area (ecological restoration, protection and restoration coordinated development area). Furthermore, the multi-dimensional ecosystem measurement "I-F-V" can be expected to identify the important ecosystems, the damaged areas of ecosystems, and integrate ecosystem services benefits. An emphasis was also made on the coordination of ecosystem protection and restoration costs, together with the development opportunities, when considering the integrity and systematism of ecosystems. Therefore, an effective assessment was achieved in the resilience and sustainability of ecosystems and economic activities, as well as the human well-being they support. Some recommendations can be also widely used in the ecosystem measurement, the ecological conservation and restoration. The findings can provide the insightful ideas and practical reference for the decision making on the protection, restoration, and ecological security pattern of territorial space.