Ecomarkets for conservation and sustainable development in the coastal zone

Because conventional markets value only certain goods or services in the ocean (e.g. fish), other services provided by coastal and marine ecosystems that are not priced, paid for, or stewarded tend to become degraded. In fact, the very capacity of an ecosystem to produce a valued good or service is often reduced because conventional markets value only certain goods and services, rather than the productive capacity. Coastal socio‐ecosystems are particularly susceptible to these market failures due to the lack of clear property rights, strong dependence on resource extraction, and other factors. Conservation strategies aimed at protecting unvalued coastal ecosystem services through regulation or spatial management (e.g. Marine Protected Areas) can be effective but often result in lost revenue and adverse social impacts, which, in turn, create conflict and opposition. Here, we describe ‘ecomarkets’ – markets and financial tools – that could, under the right conditions, generate value for broad portfolios of coastal ecosystem services while maintaining ecosystem structure and function by addressing the unique problems of the coastal zone, including the lack of clear management and exclusion rights. Just as coastal tenure and catch‐share systems generate meaningful conservation and economic outcomes, it is possible to imagine other market mechanisms that do the same with respect to a variety of other coastal ecosystem goods and services. Rather than solely relying on extracting goods, these approaches could allow communities to diversify ecosystem uses and focus on long‐term stewardship and conservation, while meeting development, food security, and human welfare goals. The creation of ecomarkets will be difficult in many cases, because rights and responsibilities must be devolved, new social contracts will be required, accountability systems must be created and enforced, and long‐term patterns of behaviour must change. We argue that efforts to overcome these obstacles are justified, because these deep changes will strongly complement policies and tools such as Marine Protected Areas, coastal spatial management, and regulation, thereby helping to bring coastal conservation to scale.     

Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service in Europe

Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services is essential to provide scientific support to global and EU biodiversity policy. Coastal protection has been mostly analysed in the frame of coastal vulnerability studies or in local, habitat-specific assessments. This paper provides a conceptual and methodological approach to assess coastal protection as an ecosystem service at different spatial–temporal scales, and applies it to the entire EU coastal zone. The assessment of coastal protection incorporates 14 biophysical and socio-economic variables from both terrestrial and marine datasets. Those variables define three indicators: coastal protection capacity, coastal exposure and human demand for protection. A questionnaire filled by coastal researchers helped assign ranks to categorical parameters and weights to the individual variables. The three indicators are then framed into the ecosystem services cascade model to estimate how coastal ecosystems provide protection, in particular describing the service function, flow and benefit. The results are comparative and aim to support integrated land and marine spatial planning. The main drivers of change for the provision of coastal protection come from the widespread anthropogenic pressures in the European coastal zone, for which a short quantitative analysis is provided.     

Issues in using landscape indicators to assess land changes

Landscape indicators, when combined with information about environmental conditions (such as habitat potential, biodiversity, carbon and nutrient cycling, and erosion) and socioeconomic forces, can provide insights about changing ecosystem services. They also provide information about opportunities for improving natural resources management. Landscape indicators rely on data regarding land cover, land management and land functionality. Challenges in using landscape indicators to assess change and effects include (1) measures of land management and attributes that are reliable, robust and consistent for all areas on the Earth do not exist, and thus land cover is more frequently utilized; (2) multiple types of land cover and management are often found within a single landscape and are constantly changing, which complicates measurement and interpretation; and (3) while causal analysis is essential for understanding and interpreting changes in indicator values, the interactions among multiple causes and effects over time make accurate attribution among many drivers of change particularly difficult. Because of the complexity, sheer number of variables, and limitations of empirical data on land changes, models are often used to illustrate and estimate values for landscape indicators, and those models have several problems. Recommendations to improve our ability to assess the effects of changes in land management include refinement of questions to be more consistent with available information and the development of data sets based on systematic measurement over time of spatially explicit land qualities such as carbon and nutrient stocks, water and soil quality, net primary productivity, habitat and biodiversity. Well-defined and consistent land-classification systems that are capable of tracking changes in these and other qualities that matter to society need to be developed and deployed. Because landscapes are so dynamic, it is crucial to develop ways for the scientific community to work together to collect data and develop tools that will enable better analysis of causes and effects and to develop robust management recommendations that will increases land's capacity to meet societal needs in a changing world.     

A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing

Despite recent interest, ecosystem services are not yet fully incorporated into private and public decisions about natural resource management. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are among the most challenging of services to include because they comprise complex ecological and social properties and processes that make them difficult to measure, map or monetize. Like others, CES are vulnerable to landscape changes and unsustainable use. To date, the sustainability of services has not been adequately addressed and few studies have considered measures of service capacity and demand simultaneously. To facilitate sustainability assessments and management of CES, our study objectives were to (1) develop a spatially explicit framework for mapping the capacity of ecosystems to provide freshwater recreational fishing, an important cultural service, (2) map societal demand for freshwater recreational fishing based on license data and identify areas of potential overuse, and (3) demonstrate how maps of relative capacity and relative demand could be interfaced to estimate sustainability of a CES. We mapped freshwater recreational fishing capacity at the 12-digit hydrologic unit-scale in North Carolina and Virginia using a multi-indicator service framework incorporating biophysical and social landscape metrics and mapped demand based on fishing license data. Mapping of capacity revealed a gradual decrease in capacity eastward from the mountains to the coastal plain and that fishing demand was greatest in urban areas. When comparing standardized relative measures of capacity and demand for freshwater recreational fishing, we found that ranks of capacity exceeded ranks of demand in most hydrologic units, except in 17% of North Carolina and 5% of Virginia. Our GIS-based approach to view freshwater recreational fishing through an ecosystem service lens will enable scientists and managers to examine (1) biophysical and social factors that foster or diminish cultural ecosystem services delivery, (2) demand for cultural ecosystem services relative to their capacity, and (3) ecological pressures like potential overuse that affect service sustainability. Ultimately, we expect such analyses to inform decision-making for freshwater recreational fisheries and other cultural ecosystem services.     

Beyond just sea‐level rise: considering macroclimatic drivers within coastal wetland vulnerability assessments to climate change

Due to their position at the land‐sea interface, coastal wetlands are vulnerable to many aspects of climate change. However, climate change vulnerability assessments for coastal wetlands generally focus solely on sea‐level rise without considering the effects of other facets of climate change. Across the globe and in all ecosystems, macroclimatic drivers (e.g., temperature and rainfall regimes) greatly influence ecosystem structure and function. Macroclimatic drivers have been the focus of climate change‐related threat evaluations for terrestrial ecosystems, but largely ignored for coastal wetlands. In some coastal wetlands, changing macroclimatic conditions are expected to result in foundation plant species replacement, which would affect the supply of certain ecosystem goods and services and could affect ecosystem resilience. As examples, we highlight several ecological transition zones where small changes in macroclimatic conditions would result in comparatively large changes in coastal wetland ecosystem structure and function. Our intent in this communication is not to minimize the importance of sea‐level rise. Rather, our overarching aim is to illustrate the need to also consider macroclimatic drivers within vulnerability assessments for coastal wetlands.     

粤港澳大湾区生态系统服务识别、分类及制图

海岸带生态系统服务识别、分类与制图是合理利用海岸带自然资源,协调海岸带开发与保护矛盾的重要基础。现有生态系统服务分类方法在海岸带应用存在一定的局限性。在前人研究的基础上,以我国城市化和工业化水平较高的粤港澳大湾区为研究区,对该区域海岸带生态系统服务进行识别、分类,并在此基础上使用地图大数据与遥感解译的土地利用数据对海岸带生态系统服务进行了制图。共识别出35种海岸带生态系统服务,并对其中的31种服务进行制图。结果表明,建立的这套方法能较为系统地展示粤港澳大湾区生态系统服务的类型及空间分布特征。具体而言,该区域供给服务和文化服务在城市中心区较为集中,而调节服务多分布于城市周边。对识别的生态系统服务进行综合叠加分析,可将研究区分为文化服务主体区、供给服务主体区、调节服务主体区。建立的海岸带生态系统服务识别、分类体系和制图方法可操作性强,能为我国海岸带生态系统的保育、修复和重建提供科学基础。     

Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, ‘open-ended’ habitat creation projects: A journey rather than a destination

Ecological restoration frequently involves setting fixed species or habitat targets to be achieved by prescribed restoration activities or through natural processes. Where no reference systems exist for defining outcomes or where restoration is planned on a large spatial scale, a more ‘open-ended’ approach to defining outcomes may be appropriate. Such approaches require changes to the definition of goals and the design of monitoring and evaluation activities. We suggest that in open-ended projects restoration goals should be framed in terms of promoting natural processes, mobile landscape mosaics and improved ecosystem services. Monitoring can then focus on the biophysical processes that underpin the development of habitat mosaics and the provision of ecosystem services, on the way habitat mosaics change through time and on species that can indicate the changing landscape attributes of connectivity and scale. Stakeholder response should be monitored since an open-ended restoration approach is unusual and can encounter institutional and societal constraints. Evaluation should focus on reporting changing restoration impacts and benefits rather than on achieving a pre-defined concept of ecological success.     

Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences

Ecosystem service assessments have increasingly been used to support environmental management policies, mainly based on biophysical and economic indicators. However, few studies have coped with the social-cultural dimension of ecosystem services, despite being considered a research priority. We examined how ecosystem service bundles and trade-offs emerge from diverging social preferences toward ecosystem services delivered by various types of ecosystems in Spain. We conducted 3,379 direct face-to-face questionnaires in eight different case study sites from 2007 to 2011. Overall, 90.5% of the sampled population recognized the ecosystem's capacity to deliver services. Formal studies, environmental behavior, and gender variables influenced the probability of people recognizing the ecosystem's capacity to provide services. The ecosystem services most frequently perceived by people were regulating services; of those, air purification held the greatest importance. However, statistical analysis showed that socio-cultural factors and the conservation management strategy of ecosystems (i.e., National Park, Natural Park, or a non-protected area) have an effect on social preferences toward ecosystem services. Ecosystem service trade-offs and bundles were identified by analyzing social preferences through multivariate analysis (redundancy analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis). We found a clear trade-off among provisioning services (and recreational hunting) versus regulating services and almost all cultural services. We identified three ecosystem service bundles associated with the conservation management strategy and the rural-urban gradient. We conclude that socio-cultural preferences toward ecosystem services can serve as a tool to identify relevant services for people, the factors underlying these social preferences, and emerging ecosystem service bundles and trade-offs.     

Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review

Background

Research on ecosystem services has grown exponentially during the last decade. Most of the studies have focused on assessing and mapping terrestrial ecosystem services highlighting a knowledge gap on marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCES) and an urgent need to assess them.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We reviewed and summarized existing scientific literature related to MCES with the aim of extracting and classifying indicators used to assess and map them. We found 145 papers that specifically assessed marine and coastal ecosystem services from which we extracted 476 indicators. Food provision, in particular fisheries, was the most extensively analyzed MCES while water purification and coastal protection were the most frequently studied regulating and maintenance services. Also recreation and tourism under the cultural services was relatively well assessed. We highlight knowledge gaps regarding the availability of indicators that measure the capacity, flow or benefit derived from each ecosystem service. The majority of the case studies was found in mangroves and coastal wetlands and was mainly concentrated in Europe and North America. Our systematic review highlighted the need of an improved ecosystem service classification for marine and coastal systems, which is herein proposed with definitions and links to previous classifications.

Conclusions/Significance

This review summarizes the state of available information related to ecosystem services associated with marine and coastal ecosystems. The cataloging of MCES indicators and the integrated classification of MCES provided in this paper establish a background that can facilitate the planning and integration of future assessments. The final goal is to establish a consistent structure and populate it with information able to support the implementation of biodiversity conservation policies.     

Applying the social–ecological systems framework to the evaluation and design of payment for ecosystem service schemes in the Eurasian steppe

The application of payment for ecosystem services schemes to dryland areas has been limited, particularly for schemes that seek to improve the grassland upon which resource users in these landscapes depend. The high levels of climatic and resource variability, strength of informal institutions governing resource use and contested nature of resource decline are examples of defining characteristics that may challenge the application of more conventional payment for ecosystem services schemes in dryland contexts. We used a social–ecological systems framework to (i) help identify design criteria for effective and efficient payment for ecosystem services schemes in drylands under a pastoral land-use, and (ii) explore the applicability of the framework to dryland areas. Using eco-compensation schemes in the Chinese governed areas of the Eurasian steppe as a case study, we found that the framework adequately identified the need for non-equilibrium dynamics to be incorporated into scheme design. However, the framework was less able to explicitly enunciate the importance of micro-economics and cultural values for scheme viability. In contexts like the Eurasian steppe where some level of grazing may maximise the species richness of grasslands, acknowledging history of use in the resource unit subsystem component of the framework, not just the user subsystem component, would improve the framework. The explicit incorporation of contested issues into the framework is also needed, as dryland areas have a history of being misunderstood by non-dryland cultures, researchers and policymakers. We conclude that tailoring a general diagnostic tool towards the specific social–ecological attributes of the drylands under a pastoral land-use will improve the ability of payment for ecosystem services schemes to reach their conservation aims.     

滨海湿地生态系统服务及其价值评估研究进展

滨海湿地是介于海陆之间的过渡地带,具有丰富的生物多样性和很高的生产力,能为人类提供诸多生态系统服务,但它又是对人类活动极为敏感的生态脆弱区。沿海经济的发展使湿地资源的有限性与人类需求的无限性之间的矛盾日益突出,导致湿地多样性丧失、服务功能退化等。在阐述滨海湿地特征及其服务产生机理的基础上,介绍了运用经济学方法对生态系统服务进行评价的进展,分析了各方法的优缺点及应用情况,最后对滨海湿地生态系统服务价值评估中存在的问题进行了总结归纳,评估所面临的困难一方面来自生态系统本身的复杂性;另一方面来自经济学方法的局限性。因此今后的研究应从生态系统服务的形成机制入手,注重生态学及经济学理论的结合,改善评估方法,提高评估结果的有效性和可信度,为湿地资源管理及生态补偿机制制定提供有力支持。     

胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统服务价值变化

为科学的评估青岛胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统服务功能的变化特点并明确其驱动因素,通过构建生态系统服务评价体系,综合运用生态学和经济学方法,对2005年、2010年和2015年胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统的供给、调节和文化3大类共12项生态服务的价值进行了评估。结果表明,气候调节和水产品生产是胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统的两大核心功能,二者占到服务总价值的90%以上;调节服务是其主要的服务类型,占到总服务价值的60%以上;2005年、2010年和2015年胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统服务总价值呈递减趋势,分别为1419.73×10~7元、1343.91×10~7元和1239.23×10~7元。湿地面积减少、湿地功能退化是造成胶州湾滨海湿地生态系统服务价值总体呈下降趋势的直接原因,不合理围垦、过度开发生物资源、水污染严重是造成湿地面积减少、功能退化的人为因素,气候条件的不利变化是造成湿地环境进一步恶化的自然因素。建议以生态系统服务价值为指导,将评估结果纳入到决策体系中,加强对青岛胶州湾滨海湿地现有资源的保护和生态恢复。     

Abundance of common species,not species richness,drives delivery of a real‐world ecosystem service

Biodiversity‐ecosystem functioning experiments have established that species richness and composition are both important determinants of ecosystem function in an experimental context. Determining whether this result holds for real‐world ecosystem services has remained elusive, however, largely due to the lack of analytical methods appropriate for large‐scale, associational data. Here, we use a novel analytical approach, the Price equation, to partition the contribution to ecosystem services made by species richness, composition and abundance in four large‐scale data sets on crop pollination by native bees. We found that abundance fluctuations of dominant species drove ecosystem service delivery, whereas richness changes were relatively unimportant because they primarily involved rare species that contributed little to function. Thus, the mechanism behind our results was the skewed species‐abundance distribution. Our finding that a few common species, not species richness, drive ecosystem service delivery could have broad generality given the ubiquity of skewed species‐abundance distributions in nature.     

Quantifying Patterns of Change in Marine Ecosystem Response to Multiple Pressures

The ability to understand and ultimately predict ecosystem response to multiple pressures is paramount to successfully implement ecosystem-based management. Thresholds shifts and nonlinear patterns in ecosystem responses can be used to determine reference points that identify levels of a pressure that may drastically alter ecosystem status, which can inform management action. However, quantifying ecosystem reference points has proven elusive due in large part to the multi-dimensional nature of both ecosystem pressures and ecosystem responses. We used ecological indicators, synthetic measures of ecosystem status and functioning, to enumerate important ecosystem attributes and to reduce the complexity of the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME). Random forests were used to quantify the importance of four environmental and four anthropogenic pressure variables to the value of ecological indicators, and to quantify shifts in aggregate ecological indicator response along pressure gradients. Anthropogenic pressure variables were critical defining features and were able to predict an average of 8-13% (up to 25-66% for individual ecological indicators) of the variation in ecological indicator values, whereas environmental pressures were able to predict an average of 1-5 % (up to 9-26% for individual ecological indicators) of ecological indicator variation. Each pressure variable predicted a different suite of ecological indicator’s variation and the shapes of ecological indicator responses along pressure gradients were generally nonlinear. Threshold shifts in ecosystem response to exploitation, the most important pressure variable, occurred when commercial landings were 20 and 60% of total surveyed biomass. Although present, threshold shifts in ecosystem response to environmental pressures were much less important, which suggests that anthropogenic pressures have significantly altered the ecosystem structure and functioning of the NES LME. Gradient response curves provide ecologically informed transformations of pressure variables to explain patterns of ecosystem structure and functioning. By concurrently identifying thresholds for a suite of ecological indicator responses to multiple pressures, we demonstrate that ecosystem reference points can be evaluated and used to support ecosystem-based management.     

Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: The assessment of the nursery function

The relationship between biodiversity and each ecosystem service or bundle of ecosystem services (e.g. win−win, win−lose or win−neutral) is an active field of research that requires structured and consistent information. The application of that research for conservation and decision-making can be hampered by the ambiguity found in the definition of the nursery function under the ecosystem service perspective. In this paper, we review how the role of nursery habitats is included in the ecosystem services literature, covering conceptual, biophysical and economic reflections. The role of ecosystems as nurseries is mostly analyzed in coastal environments. The main observation is that there is no consensus on the consideration of the nursery function as a service (e.g. which species or habitats) or on how to assess it (e.g. which indicators or valuation methods). After that review, we analyze three different interpretations given to the nursery function, namely the ecological, conservationist and economic point of view; and we distinguish between different types of assessment that may consider the nursery function.We conclude that the nursery function can be considered an ecosystem service on its own right when it is linked to a concrete human benefit and not when it is represented with indicators of general biodiversity or ecosystem condition. Thus, the analysis of the delivery of ecosystem services should be differentiated from the analysis of ecological integrity. Only with this distinction science may be able to quantify the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services and policy may be effective in halting biodiversity loss. Similar considerations could apply for other biodiversity constituents that may be treated as ecosystem services.     

Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services

Our focus here is on how vegetation management can be used to manipulate the balance of ecosystem services at a landscape scale. Across a landscape, vegetation can be maintained or restored or modified or removed and replaced to meet the changing needs of society, giving mosaics of vegetation types and ‘condition classes’ that can range from intact native ecosystems to highly modified systems. These various classes will produce different levels and types of ecosystem services and the challenge for natural resource management programs and land management decisions is to be able to consider the complex nature of trade-offs between a wide range of ecosystem services. We use vegetation types and their condition classes as a first approximation or surrogate to define and map the underlying ecosystems in terms of their regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural services. In using vegetation as a surrogate, we believe it is important to describe natural or modified (e.g. agronomic) vegetation classes in terms of structure – which in turn is related to ecosystem function (rooting depth, nutrient recycling, carbon capture, water use, etc.). This approach enables changes in vegetation as a result of land use to be coupled with changes to surface and groundwater resources and other physical and chemical properties of soils.For Australian ecosystems an existing structural classification based on height and cover of all vegetation layers is suggested as the appropriate functional vegetation classification. This classification can be used with a framework for mapping and manipulating vegetation condition classes. These classes are based on the degree of modification to pre-existing vegetation and, in the case of biodiversity, this is the original vegetation. A landscape approach enables a user to visualise and evaluate the trade-offs between economic and environmental objectives at a spatial scale at which the delivery of ecosystem services can meaningfully be influenced and reported. Such trade-offs can be defined using a simple scoring system or, if the ecological and socio-economic data exist in sufficient detail, using process-based models.Existing Australian databases contain information that can be aggregated at the landscape and water catchment scales. The available spatial information includes socio-economic data, terrain, vegetation type and cover, soils and their hydrological properties, groundwater quantity and surface water flows. Our approach supports use of this information to design vegetation management interventions for delivery of an appropriate mix of ecosystem services across landscapes with diverse land uses.     

Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,management and decision making

Despite the growing body of literature on ecosystem services, still many challenges remain to structurally integrate ecosystem services in landscape planning, management and design. This paper therefore aims to provide an overview of the challenges involved in applying ecosystem service assessment and valuation to environmental management and discuss some solutions to come to a comprehensive and practical framework.First the issue of defining and classifying ecosystem services is discussed followed by approaches to quantify and value ecosystem services. The main part of the paper is focussed on the question how to analyze trade-offs involved in land cover and land use change, including spatial analysis and dynamic modelling tools. Issues of scale are addressed, as well as the question how to determine the total economic value of different management states.Finally, developments and challenges regarding the inclusion of ecosystem services in integrative landscape planning and decision-making tools are discussed.It is concluded that the ecosystem service approach and ecosystem service valuation efforts have changed the terms of discussion on nature conservation, natural resource management, and other areas of public policy. It is now widely recognized that nature conservation and conservation management strategies do not necessarily pose a trade-off between the “environment” and “development”. Investments in conservation, restoration and sustainable ecosystem use are increasingly seen as a “win-win situation” which generates substantial ecological, social and economic benefits.     

The human dimensions of coastal ecosystem services: Managing for social values

Coastal management is driven by the values and priorities of society as expressed through social, political, and economic systems. Diverse resource management goals reflect what society wants from its surrounding environments as presented in enabling legislation and other resource laws. Today, coastal management encompasses decisions of what to regulate, what enterprises and initiatives to promote, and which ecosystem services are most important to citizens and businesses. Data based on the natural or physical sciences are important, but are just one input into this socially driven, value-based process. This paper offers an insight into why an ecosystem service approach using human dimensions as the major driver is becoming an increasing focus of coastal resource management.     

基于生态系统服务评价的围填海区域景观生态红线划分方法及应用研究

以围填海活动为代表的高强度的人类开发利用方式从根本上改变了海岸带地区的自然属性,区域生态环境发生了深刻变化。定位于我国大陆沿海的围填海区域,通过人机交互目视解译的方法获取我国大陆沿海围填海区域的矢量数据,基于围填海活动影响下海岸带区域的景观类型和生态系统服务变化的评估结果,识别我国海岸带的生态脆弱区和重点保护区,提出围填海区域景观生态红线的划分方法。通过分析可知:(1)围填海区域景观生态红线区呈现出"总体分散、局部集中"的的分布特点;(2)景观生态红线区主要分布在人工湿地和残存自然湿地中。围填海区域是进行海陆统筹研究的关键区域,而景观生态红线作为识别其重要生态功能区,并进行二次保护和抢救性保护的有效手段,将为我国海岸带生态管理提供新思路和新方法。     

基于AD-AS模型的海岸带生态系统综合承载力评估——以舟山海岸带为例

以舟山海岸带为研究区域,结合采样数据和社会经济发展数据,构建以社会因子、经济因子和自然因子为3个维度因子的海岸带生态系统综合承载力评估的指标体系。并参照经济学中的AD-AS模型,改进成综合总供给-综合总需求模型(SAD-SAS模型),根据生态系统中总供给与总需求之间的平衡关系,来计算舟山海岸带综合承载力量值,并尝试将海岸带综合承载力值的分类标准在原来的基础上分为5类,最后评价其所处的承载力水平。研究结果表明:舟山海岸带综合承载力在2005—2008年时处于微幅上升的阶段,年均增速为6.5%,在2008—2009年开始出现稍微的下降,下降幅度为3%;SAD-SAS模型作为生态学与经济学交叉的模型,为海岸带综合承载力评价提供了一种新思路。