SolVES模型价值转移方法对不同空间尺度的响应评估

随着人类对生态系统服务压力的不断增加,生态系统服务社会价值的评估变得至关重要。利用SolVES模型将太白山国家森林公园的社会价值转移到牛背梁国家森林公园和秦岭山地,评估两者的社会价值并探讨不同尺度下转移结果的差异。结果表明:1)牛背梁国家森林公园游憩价值指数与高程负相关,美学价值指数与高程正相关,羚牛谷山水观光游憩区的游憩价值较高,高山风光区的美学价值较高;2)秦岭山地的游憩价值与高程正相关,美学价值与高程负相关,森林公园的游憩价值较高,山地整体美学价值指数偏低;3)秦岭山地的社会价值集中于高程1000—2000m、坡度25°—35°处,而牛背梁国家森林公园的社会价值分布规律不明显;4)不同尺度下相同的转移模型输出的转移结果与环境变量的关系存在差异。SolVES模型的价值转移子模型是一个可以进行生态系统服务社会价值评估的快速有效的工具,但应根据需求精度选择合适的统计模型。

Response of a SolVES model value transfer method to different spatial scales

As human activities become more stressful to ecosystem services, it is crucial to integrate the social value of ecosystem services into ecosystem services assessments. Social value, defined as the nonmarket value perceived by the public, is mainly elicited from public value and preference surveys. Generally, there exist many obstacles to attaining preliminary survey data via questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Value Transfer Mapping Model, a SolVES (Social Value for Ecosystem Services) sub-model, provides a means of assessing social values in areas where survey data is missing. In this paper, the elevation and slope were selected as transfer variables, using Taibai Mountain National Forest Park as the "study site", and Niubeiliang National Forest Park and the Qinling Mountains as the "policy site". The Value Transfer Mapping Model was applied to evaluate the social value of ecosystem services of Niubeiliang National Forest Park and the Qinling Mountains, with the discussion of the various findings of the Value Transfer Mapping Model in different scales. In addition to assessing the social values, 4 typical social values (biodiversity, cultural, aesthetic and recreation) were chosen to establish the social values of Niubeiliang National Forest Park and the Qinling Mountains, based on the test AUC and the training AUC from the statistical model of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park. The findings indicated that:1) The recreation value index of Niubeiliang National Forest Park was negatively correlated with elevation, while the aesthetic value index was positively correlated with elevation. The recreational value was higher in Takin Valley Mountain and the Water Tourism Recreation Area relative to the Alpine Scenic Area, which had the highest aesthetic value. Biodiversity and cultural values were negatively correlated with elevation, and the cultural value was mainly distributed in the vicinity of Tiefu Temple religious area, but the distribution of biodiversity was not obvious with a wide range; 2) The recreation value in the Qinling Mountains was positively correlated with elevation, while the aesthetic value was negatively correlated with elevation. The recreation value index was relatively high in forest parks, with very few high value points of aesthetic value in the Qinling Mountains. The value of biodiversity was denser at higher altitudes and more concentrated near ridgelines. The cultural value was chiefly distributed in relatively low altitude areas, but rarely near ridgelines; 3) The social value of the Qinling Mountains was concentrated in areas with an elevation of 1000-2000 m and a slope of 25°-35°, while the distribution of social value in Niubeiliang National Forest Park was not obvious; 4) Although the same statistical model was used, there was a difference in the relationship between output transfer results and environmental variables of different scales. Meanwhile, the more centralized the distribution of value points, the less statistical information, the fewer value points of the output when transferring; thus, the Transfer Model of the value point concentration should be carefully chosen. Overall, the Value Transfer Mapping Model of SolVES integrated the Maxent model to rapidly transfer social value and was a useful tool for quickly and effectively assessing the social value of ecosystem services.