基于不同游客视角的百花山自然保护区生态系统服务社会价值评估

自然保护区的生态系统服务（Ecosystem Service，ES）的社会文化价值，是支持自然保护区多元化发展、践行生态文明建设的重要路径。以北京市百花山自然保护区为例，结合社会调查数据和地理空间数据，在对生态旅游者和一般游客有效分类的基础上，使用SolVES模型、相关性分析和社会网络分析等方法探索二者对研究区ES社会文化价值的认同差异、空间差异、作用关系差异及影响因素差异。研究发现：（1）生态旅游者对ES社会价值的价值认同比一般游客高，特别体现在学习、生物多样性、精神和生命可持续价值这4种价值类型上；（2）百花草甸是两类游客ES社会价值分布的热点区域，生态旅游者感知的美学、学习、生物多样性、精神和生命可持续价值的高值区的分布范围较一般游客更广，一般游客感知的娱乐和康体健身价值的高值区的分布范围较生态旅游者更广；（3）两类游客均认为不同ES社会价值类型间为协同关系，其中学习价值对生态旅游者而言是最具影响力的社会价值类型，生物多样性、精神、生命可持续和未来价值对一般游客而言是最具影响力的社会价值类型；（4）对旅游设施的满意度显著影响两类游客对关键价值类型的评估，但影响方式不同。此外对环境教育的满意度和是否知道百花山是国家级自然保护区分别是影响生态旅游者和一般游客对关键价值类型评估的社会要素，NDVI和ELEV分别是影响生态旅游者和一般游客对关键价值类型评估的空间要素。建议在自然保护区生态旅游的规划建设中，需要考虑不同游客对ES社会价值的感知差异，积极探索协同ES社会价值的供给，支持自然保护区自然资源管理和生态旅游规划。

Social value evaluation of ecosystem services in Baihuashan Natural Reserve from different tourists' perspectives

The social and cultural value of ecosystem services (ES) is important to support the diversified development of natural reserve, and promote the construction of ecological civilization, while social and cultural value of ecosystem services may be varied among different stakeholders. There is limited research on the difference of social and cultural value of ecosystem services among different tourists. Taking Baihuashan Natural Reserve in Beijing as an example, this paper classified tourists into ecotourist and general tourist, and then compared differences of recognition, spatial distribution, relationships, and influence factors in their evaluation of social and cultural value of ecosystem services. The research combined social survey data and geographic spatial data and utilized multiple ways including SolVES model, correlation analysis and social network analysis (NA) to analyze and show these differences. The research finds that:(1) the ecotourists assigned higher value to the social value of ecosystem services than general tourists, especially in four value types:learning value, biodiversity value, spiritual value, and life sustaining value. (2) Baihua Meadow is a hot spot for the distribution of social values of ecosystem services for both ecotourists and general tourists. The high value areas of aesthetics value, learning value, biodiversity value, spiritual value, and life sustaining value perceived by ecotourists are more widely distributed than those of general tourists, and the high value areas of recreation value and therapeutic value perceived by general tourists are more widely distributed than those of ecotourists. (3) Synergistic relationships between different social value types of ecosystem services are found, among which learning value is the most influential social value type for ecotourists, and biodiversity value, spiritual value, life sustaining value and future value are the most influential social value types for general tourists. (4) Satisfaction with tourism facilities has significant but opposite effect on two types of tourists for their evaluation of key social value of ecosystem services. In addition, satisfaction with the environmental education and knowledge about whether Baihuashan is a national natural reserve has also significant impact on ecotourists and general tourists for their evaluation of key social value of ecosystem services, respectively. In terms of spatial distribution, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and elevation (ELEV) have significant impact on ecotourists and general tourists for their evaluation of key social value of ecosystem services, respectively. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the difference of different tourists'' perception of social value of ecosystem services and actively explore the supply of collaborative social value of ecosystem services to support the natural resource management and ecotourism planning of natural reserves. Specifically, targeted publicity and education should be improved to enhance ecological knowledge and awareness of tourist to maximize social value of ecosystem services, and the reserve manager should focus on reducing human disturbance in hot area to conserve and maintain ecosystem.