The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

生态系统修复国内外研究进展与展望

气候变化和人类活动的增加不仅导致生态系统退化、生物多样性丧失、生物圈资源供给能力降低, 而且极大地制约了社会经济的可持续发展。尽管在全世界范围内已实施了大量的保护工作, 但全球生态系统退化仍在继续, 逐渐成为备受关注的全球性问题。文章首先厘清生态系统修复的发展历程、相关概念与理论。其次, 归纳生态系统修复的全球议题, 涉及生态系统服务及其价值评估、生物多样性保护、应对气候变化与碳储存、自然保护地、监测体系与适应性管理、公平性与多主体参与等方面。然后, 总结我国森林、草原、河流与湿地、海洋与海岸带的生态系统退化问题与修复进展, 梳理生态保护红线、自然保护地生态系统修复和国土空间生态保护修复3种措施的进展与不足。最后, 对山水林田湖草沙一体化保护与系统治理、生态系统修复的多元融资政策与渠道、荒野生态保护修复的探索与实践、城镇生态系统修复的研究与应用以及生态系统修复对生物多样性的保护与维持等五个方面进行展望, 以期为我国进一步开展生态系统保护修复的相关研究与实践提供指导。     

区域生态恢复规划及其关键问题

生态恢复是一项长期的根本性生态建设措施,需要有区域性整体规划与长期维持的具体安排。目前,区域生态恢复规划却未受到足够的关注。重点讨论了区域生态恢复规划的内涵、理论基础、规划原则及关键问题,这些问题的探讨对于提升生态恢复效率,增强生态恢复的科学性具有重要意义。区域生态恢复规划从宏观整体性的角度对区域内所实施的生态恢复工程进行统筹规划,对区域内实施的具体恢复规划具有指导意义。区域生态恢复以不同生态功能区的主导生态功能为恢复目标。在退化生态系统诊断的基础上,确定在哪里恢复。通过局地恢复治理与区域调控相结合的恢复策略,实现生态链与产业链的结合,其本质则是实现生态建设与社会经济的协调发展。     

面向生态修复的自然资源资产评估与应用研究——以广州市为例

生态修复是国土空间治理的重要内容。做好生态受损、功能退化地区的辨识并因地施策,是科学编制国土空间规划、实施生态修复重大工程的优先任务。基于自然资源资产评估方法,探索提出一种面向生态保护与修复规划的应用路径。在自然资源资产理念与方法评估辨析基础上,以广州为例,构建在地化的自然资源实物核算、生态系统服务功能价值评估框架,开展生态修复空间辨识,提出空间规划应对策略。主要研究结论：(1)2009年广州市自然资源资产总值约8334亿元,2019年为12025亿元;(2)自然资源资产价值总体呈上升趋势;剔除价格上涨因素后,调节与支持服务价值有所下降,生态保护与修复工作仍待强化;(3)提出自然资源资产评估在国土空间规划生态重要性地区识别、生态空间主导功能分区、生态治理重点研判等规划应用。最后,就如何提高自然资源资产评估的合理性与准确性,自然资源资产评估方法在不同层次国土空间生态修复规划中的适应性,如何基于自然资产评估推动生态修复规划实施等方面进行了讨论。     

长江三角洲生态环境脆弱带生态修复技术研究进展

我国长江三角洲作为中国第一大经济区，综合实力最强的经济中心，其城市化和工业化发展迅速，但在人类活动的高强度影响和干预下，该地区的资源环境问题日益突出：生态环境脆弱性程度的增高，脆弱性发展趋势的加快等等一系列问题严重影响着长江三角洲的可持续发展，该区域生态环境呈现出的脆弱性特征已成为我国新的生态环境脆弱带。基于长江三角洲自然、经济、社会和环境状况的数据基础，及国内外脆弱性综合评价指标(自然因素和人为因素),对长江三角洲进行生态环境评估发现该区域具体的生态环境问题主要为土壤污染、城区大气污染、水环境污染，以及地面沉降等。通过剖析长江三角洲4类生态环境问题(土壤污染、大气污染、水环境污染、地面沉降)的现状、形成的具体原因及带来的影响，结合国内外生态修复技术的研究成果，详细论述了该区域4类生态环境问题的生态修复技术类型(物理方法、化学方法、生物方法、生态方法)、基本原理及各自的优缺点，同时评估了不同生态修复技术在污染治理过程中的可行性、安全性、经济性，旨在以上述理论研究为参照标准评估该区域环境污染治理过程中生态修复技术的修复潜力，为长江三角洲生态环境问题的治理修复提供方案及理论参考。长江三角洲...     

Flexible and Adaptable Restoration: An Example from South Korea

Ecological restoration is set to play a key role in mitigating biodiversity loss. While many restorationists worry about what to do about and what to call rapidly changing ecosystems (no‐analog, novel, or other terms), ecologists and managers in some parts of the world have avoided these controversies and proceeded with developing and implementing innovative restoration projects. We discuss examples from South Korea, including the Cheonggyecheon river project in Seoul and the new National Institute of Ecology, which combines scientific research, planted reference systems for future restoration, and an Ecorium for outreach and education. South Korea faces a range of restoration challenges, including managing even‐aged planted forests, major land use changes (especially urbanization) affecting valuable tidal flats, and fragmented landscapes caused by intensive land use and the fenced Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The examples from South Korea provide insights that might guide future actions more broadly. These include flexible targets for restoration not based on historical precedents, considering ecosystem functions and functional trait diversity as well as species composition, creating model restoration projects, and managing adaptively.     

Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: Toward ‘futuristic’ restoration

Ecological restoration is one of the fastest growing fields in applied ecology providing new ideas and opportunities for biological conservation and natural resource management. Despite countless attempts in the past, large portions of restoration projects have been considered unsuccessful mainly due to: unrealistic goals; inadequate restoration plans based on an ad-hoc approach; lack of explicit and quantified evaluation criteria for restoration success; lack of ecological understanding; social, economic, and political constraints; or combinations of these factors. Existing ecological theories, particularly succession theories, may provide a conceptual framework for a restoration trajectory. However, projecting a desirable trajectory and outcome is often challenged by the unpredictability of ecological communities in the changing environment. Particularly, the sustainability of reconstructed historic ecosystems appears to be an unlikely goal in the ever-changing and unpredictable future environment. This paper calls for a shift in the restoration paradigm from historic to futuristic. A futuristic restoration is: (i) to set realistic and dynamic (instead of static) goals for future, instead of past, environment; (ii) to assume multiple trajectories acknowledging the unpredictable nature of ecological communities and ecosystems; (iii) to take an ecosystem or landscape approach, instead of ad-hoc gardening, for both function and structure; (iv) to evaluate the restoration progress with explicit criteria, based on quantitative inference; and (v) to maintain long-term monitoring of restoration outcomes. A theoretical framework for futuristic restoration, in terms of goals, trajectories, evaluation criteria, and monitoring, along with a historical perspective is presented in this paper.     

Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil

Forest restoration requires strategies such as passive restoration to balance financial investments and ecological outcomes. However, the ecological outcomes of passive restoration are traditionally regarded as uncertain. We evaluated technical and legal strategies for balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive versus active restoration in agricultural landscapes. We focused in the case of Brazil, where we assessed the factors driving the proportion of land allocated to passive and active restoration in 42 programs covering 698,398 hectares of farms in the Atlantic Forest, Atlantic Forest/cerrado ecotone and Amazon; the ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in 2955 monitoring plots placed in six restoration programs; and the legal framework developed by some Brazilian states to balance the different restoration approaches and comply with legal commitments. Active restoration had the highest proportion of land allocated to it (78.4%), followed by passive (14.2%) and mixed restoration (7.4%). Passive restoration was higher in the Amazon, in silviculture, and when remaining forest cover was over 50 percent. Overall, both restoration approaches showed high levels of variation in the ecological outcomes; nevertheless, passively restored areas had a smaller percentage canopy cover, lower species density, and less shrubs and trees (dbh > 5 cm). The studied legal frameworks considered land abandonment for up to 4 years before deciding on a restoration approach, to favor the use of passive restoration. A better understanding of the biophysical and socioeconomic features of areas targeted for restoration is needed to take a better advantage of their natural regeneration potential.     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点工程布局及技术策略

习近平总书记提出的山水林田湖草生命共同体理念对我国新时代生态保护修复工作具有重要的指导意义,开展山水林田湖草整体保护、系统修复、综合治理是解决我国生态环境问题的重要途径,也是推进生态文明建设的必然要求。2016以来,财政部、原国土资源部、原环境保护部在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）共安排25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点,对现有试点工程布局和技术策略进行全面剖析,能够为全面推进生态保护修复工作提供依据。在介绍山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程概念和主要任务的基础上,揭示试点工程布局特征,总结生态保护修复技术策略,同时探讨试点目前已经取得的效益、工程实施所存在的问题,并提出相关的建议。研究表明,25个试点大多分布于我国生态安全战略格局骨架区域,并且基本都属于国家重点生态功能区,对维护国家生态安全、提升区域生态功能具有重要意义;总结25个试点实施措施可以发现,工程技术策略主要包含了重要生态系统保护修复、生物多样性保护、流域水环境保护治理、污染与退化土地修复治理、矿山生态修复、土地综合整治等内容。试点工程的实施,开始取得生态、社会和经济等多重效益,但也存在工程宏观布局不尽完善、生态系统理念没能贯彻、自然恢复策略有待实施、监测评价管理缺乏科学、区域全面发展尚需提升等问题。未来应从完善国家宏观生态战略格局保障体系、加强区域生态系统状况和恢复力调查评价、优化工程项目实施规模和时序、研究和实践自然恢复标准与技术、开展长期跟踪监测与进行适应性管理等方面构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程技术和制度体系。     

粤北南岭典型矿山生态修复工程技术模式与效益预评估——基于广东省山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点框架

广东粤北南岭山区地处国家生态安全格局“两屏三带”中的南方丘陵山地带的核心区,由于历史上有色金属矿产无序开采、选矿和冶炼等活动,导致区域生态环境问题突出,并造成下游区域土壤、水、农作物污染。修复历史遗留矿山、做好源头控制是解决区域生态环境问题的关键所在。以典型矿山废弃地单元（废土堆）为例,提出其生态修复工程技术模式与关键技术,开展修复效益预评估方法和实践研究。研究结果表明：粤北南岭山区矿区生态环境问题主要包括矿山植被破坏和水土流失问题突出、地质灾害风险隐患较大、矿山周边水土污染严重几个方面;矿山生态修复应以防控安全隐患为基础,以恢复生态功能为主要目标,同时治理矿山水土污染。构建了遵循山水林田湖草系统共治的“依山就势”重塑地形、“因势利导”疏导水流、“柔性防护”稳定边坡的粤北南岭废土堆立体生态修复模式,提出了相应的场地平整、清污分流、土壤改良、边坡生态袋植生、立体植被配置等生态恢复关键技术;建立了包括涵养水源、保持水土、净化环境及净化水质4个方面的生态效益评估模型,废土堆修复后生态效益预计可达到66754.25元/a。研究结果可为粤北南岭山区及类似区域山水林田湖草系统共治提供技术支撑。     

基于主导生态功能的抚河流域国土空间生态安全格局分析

从主导生态功能的角度分析探讨生态安全格局，是明晰流域内生态安全、保护生物多样性的重要途径。以抚河流域为研究对象，采用多源空间数据，根据研究区自然条件和生态状况，基于主导生态功能定量评估水源涵养、水土保持、生物多样性3个生态系统服务功能，结合粒度反推法和热点分析选取生态源地，综合自然条件和人类活动影响因素构建阻力面，运用电路理论构建生态廊道，识别生态修复关键区域，提出生态安全格局优化对策。研究结果表明：（1）抚河流域内有25块生态源地，主要为林草地，共5574.63km²，60条生态廊道，共1126.91km；（2）基于生态安全格局识别生态修复关键区域，包括生态夹点26处、总长度为182.99km，生态障碍点19处、总面积为167.09km²，生态断裂点146处，破碎生态空间3283.79km²；（3）结合生态安全格局和生态修复关键区域，构建"三轴六区"生态安全空间布局优化体系。研究对维护抚河流域的生态安全、实行国土空间生态系统修复具有指导意义。     

基于生态系统服务的山水林田湖草生态保护修复研究——以南太行地区鹤山区为例

开展山水林田湖草生态保护修复是生态文明建设的重要内容,将生态系统服务评价成果与山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程相结合,以国家第三批山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点-河南省南太行地区鹤山区为例,探究生态系统服务评价成果在区域山水林田湖草生态保护修复中的应用。结果表明,近年来鹤山区生态系统服务价值整体呈下降趋势且生态环境破坏严重。其中,2014-2017年鹤山区各土地类型二级服务ESV减少了303.95万元。研究期内,水资源供给、气体调节功能、气候调节、净化环境、水文调节、土壤保持、生物多样性和美学景观等8项生态服务价值都出现不同程度的下降;在鹤山区生态保护修复工作中需要重点关注生态系统的水文调节、净化环境、土壤保持和生物多样性等服务功能,相应的生态保护修复工程应集中在河道生态修复与湿地保护、矿山生态环境修复与土地整治、森林及生物多样性保护修复;鹤山区山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程能够提升区域生态服务价值。其中,工程实施后的生态系统服务价值总量预计能达到36407.95万元,比2017年增加7741.96万元,增长率为27%且各项生态服务价值均有提升。研究结果对鹤山区山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程的实施有一定的指导性作用。     

延安市生态修复双赢模式实证研究

"越穷越垦、越垦越穷"的贫困陷阱是困扰全球可持续发展的学术难题之一,探索摆脱贫困陷阱的有效途径,是生态修复的核心目标。因此,生态修复不仅要依据当地气候与地理条件开展生态治理,同时要改变当地居民的生产生活行为,发展有利于生态修复的绿色产业,使当地居民的生产生活行为既可以提高收入、改善生活,又有利于生态修复。从而摆脱"越穷越垦、越垦越穷"的被动局面,实现生态修复与居民生计改善的双赢目标。为了验证这一模式的可行性,该研究在退耕还林项目实施的基础上,通过补短板的方式,在延安市开展了生态修复双赢模式实证研究。结果表明,新方案实施前,延安市NDVI增长速度是陕西省平均水平的41%;新方案实施后,是陕西省平均水平的195%,新方案的贡献率为74.0%。双赢模式较好解决了环境保护与社会经济发展彼此分离的这一矛盾,提高了生态修复的治理效果,为我国生态脆弱区精准扶贫和生态文明建设提供了理论依据和治理样板。     

神木市生态安全格局构建与生态问题定量诊断

黄河流域生态保护和高质量发展是重大的国家战略,县域生态安全格局构建与生态问题定量诊断是实施生态保护修复的最基本单元。以神木市为研究对象,首先,基于电路理论构建神木市生态安全格局,将识别出的生态夹点、生态障碍点和低质量生态空间作为生态修复关键区域;其次,通过构建生态问题指标体系,在生态修复关键区域内定量化诊断现存生态问题;最后,通过生态问题指数(EPI)测算结果划定生态修复分区。研究表明：(1)神木市生态源地面积为411.64km²,以草地为主,主要分布在中部、东部和南部地区,源间生态廊道共63条,总长度约610.71km,中部地区的生态廊道较东南部密度大。(2)基于生态安全格局识别的生态修复关键区域包括生态夹点415个,面积达30.55km²;生态障碍点341个,面积共计25.72km²;低质量生态空间面积为1043.73km²。(3)生态修复关键区域内土壤侵蚀主要以微度侵蚀为主;地质灾害多发于采矿区以及黄土丘陵沟壑区;水源涵养低值区主要分布在低质量生态空间;林地和草地的退化程度呈现东部较中部和西南...     

市县级限制开发区环境功能区划研究——以河北省张家口市为例

限制开发地区是我国主体功能区划中划定的提供重要生态功能和农产品的地区,对其进行环境功能区划对于推动环境功能区划制度落地与实施,以及限制开发区的保护与发展有着重要意义。当前国家及省级的环境功能区划研究已经相对成熟,而市县尺度的限制开发地区环境功能区划相关研究较少。在总结现有环境功能区划研究方法的基础上,以河北省张家口市为例,探讨了市县级限制开发地区环境功能区划体系设计和技术方法,提出了以公里格网作为分析单元,结合县域行政边界,基于环境功能综合评价的结果,从自然生态安全、维护人群健康和区域环境支撑能力等3个方面,开展环境功能区划。基于该方法,将张家口市分为自然生态保留区、生态功能保持区、生态功能恢复区、农产品安全保障区、环境开发准入区、聚居发展维护区6类环境功能区,并根据各环境功能区的主要功能及生态环境特点提出相应的发展建议,以期为该区域管理提供可行的操作手段。本文提出的方法也可为其他限制开发地区的环境功能区划提供参考。     

喀斯特槽谷区生态退化与修复专题导读

在国家重点研发计划项目——"喀斯特槽谷区土地石漠化过程及综合治理技术研发与示范(2016YFC0502300)"的支持下,经过项目组全体成员三年的共同努力,在喀斯特槽谷区生态退化与修复方面取得了一些重要进展。主要有:(1)2000—2015年槽谷区土壤侵蚀总量逐年减少,年平均侵蚀模数逐年降低,槽谷区植被覆盖明显提高;(2)拉巴豆地埂篱根土复合体不仅能有效提高喀斯特土壤的粒径大小和增强土体的抗剪/冲性能,并且能够利用大气N_2合成植物生长所需的氮肥,从而提高土壤肥力,可望实现石漠化治理中生态效应和经济效应的双赢;(3)喀斯特槽谷区隧道建设改变了地下水流场并降低了地下水位,进而降低了土壤微生物丰度和多样性,而增加了适应干旱的微生物种群,并导致土壤质量的降低;隧道建设加速了坡面产流和土壤流失,加剧了土地石漠化,从而导致生态退化;(4)随着槽谷区退化生态系统的恢复,生态系统的生态服务功能得到提升。     

京津冀风沙源区沙化土地治理关键技术研究与示范

京津冀风沙源区是我国北方生态屏障的重要组成部分。面向我国北方风沙区沙化土地综合治理、典型脆弱生态修复与保护等重大科技需求,京津冀风沙源区沙化土地治理关键技术研究与示范项目将综合运用长期定位观测、控制实验、多源遥感数据融合、技术示范等方法,重点研究京津冀风沙源区土地沙化形成机制与生态修复机理,研发一批沙化土地治理与产业化关键技术,并在各治理区开展试验示范,集成京津冀风沙源区沙化土地治理与产业化技术体系,构建沙化土地综合整治空间决策支持系统,为京津风沙源治理工程建设、保障京津冀地区生态安全及满足2022年北京冬奥会生态需求提供科技支撑。     

Case studies of the history and politics of wild canid restoration in Korea

Wild canids were historically abundant in Korea; however, the gray wolf, dhole, and red fox were extirpated during the twentieth century. The causes varied. “Pest control” during the Japanese occupation, ecological destruction during wars, disease epizootics, and “vermin control” after the Korean War contributed to the complete demise of wolves. The fox had succumbed to unregulated hunting, rodenticides, habitat loss, and disease epizootics. The dhole was naturally rare; its extirpation from northeastern Asia including Korea is not established. Although the wolf and fox are extirpated, the Korean government still lists both as endangered species to facilitate the recently implemented restoration programs. Restoration will face the challenges of importing genetically diverse populations and the critical loss, fragmentation, and alteration of peri‐urban habitats. The overall social support for these efforts is not clear: it may be low because of changes in social mores or simply an unintended consequence of land and water use choices and policies that people may not perceive in everyday life. In this critical analysis, we postulate that the current restoration programs are misdirected toward inappropriate species and likely employ outdated techniques. We propose that a reallocation of restoration efforts and resources to populations of existing rare or threatened species would be more ecologically beneficial with higher probabilities of success. We recognize that there can be good reason to restore the upper trophic levels, especially keystone species, but are concerned that the impetus is more about focusing on charismatic megafauna rather than pragmatic choices more likely to be effective.     

基于恢复生态学的洞庭湖区“山水林田湖草”生态修复研究

实施洞庭湖区"山水林田湖草"生态修复工程，是践行生态文明理念、遵循自然规律、破解生态环境保护难题的关键措施。由于自然灾害及人类不合理利用等因素影响，洞庭湖区生态问题日益严重，对洞庭湖区生态系统均衡和可持续发展带来威胁。基于恢复生态学理论，以洞庭湖区为研究对象，采用物能循环和物能转化的生态学原则分析洞庭湖区存在土壤重金属污染、水环境、生物多样性与植被退化和农村土地利用的生态问题，明确了"山水林田湖草"生命共同体中各要素及相应形成的子系统存在的相互联系和相互制约的关系，厘清洞庭湖区生态系统的生态退化过程和生态退化机制，就此提出重构生态水体、重建生态地质地貌和重现生态景观的生态恢复策略，提出妥善解决和处理洞庭湖区的生态恢复及亟需进行环境整治问题，实现自然景观的恢复重构。通过构建洞庭湖区生态系统恢复的测度指标体系和洞庭湖区生态系统恢复的监测与管控，实现洞庭湖区"山水林田湖草"生态恢复的目标。     

新时期我国国土空间生态修复理念与模式探讨

国土空间生态修复以地理学、景观生态学理论为基础,是推进生态文明、建设美丽中国的重要举措。我国国土空间生态修复呈现理论体系多学科化、工作模式多元化、技术方法融合化、实践探索多样化的特征,工作总体成效显著与任务艰巨并存。本文基于国土空间生态修复的新挑战,对国土空间生态修复研究的总体框架和技术路径、区域国土空间生态修复的工作机制与模式、国土空间生态修复的内容体系和技术标准进行综述。新时期,我国国土空间生态修复顶层设计应重点围绕工作体系、业务边界和制度体系3项内容,明确各类业务流程的职责边界,从理论、制度、工程、技术全域视角实现工作全链条闭合管理。乡村聚落区、城镇建成区、工矿聚集区、生态功能区、蓝色海洋区是区域尺度国土空间的5大组成要素,分别对应全域土地综合整治、城市更新与城市双修、矿山地质环境修复治理、山水林田湖草系统修复、蓝色海湾修复整治5种差别化生态修复模式。应综合运用“三个集成”(信息、技术、流程)思维,构建一套涵盖调查监测评价、国土空间规划、工程项目实施、工程项目验收、生态系统监测评价一体化的区域国土空间生态修复工作模式。