基于生态系统服务视角的“土地分离与共享框架”解析

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.09.005

地理科学进展 ›› 2016, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (9): 1100-1108.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.09.005

基于生态系统服务视角的“土地分离与共享框架”解析

冯喆^1,², 许学工^2,^*(), 周建^3,⁴, 高阳^3,⁴

1. 中国地质大学(北京)土地科学技术学院,北京 100083
2. 北京大学城市与环境学院,地表过程与模拟教育部重点实验室,北京 100871
3. 中国农业大学资源与环境学院土地资源管理系,北京 100193
4. 国土资源部农用地质量与监控重点实验室,北京 100193

收稿日期:2015-10-01 修回日期:2016-07-01 出版日期:2016-09-20 发布日期:2016-09-20
通讯作者: 许学工 E-mail:xxg@urban.pku.edu.cn
作者简介:
作者简介：冯喆(1984-),男,北京人,博士,讲师,研究方向为土地利用和生态系统服务,E-mail: fengzhe@pku.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41271102,41501087)

Land sparing versus sharing framework from ecosystem service perspective

Zhe FENG^1,², Xuegong XU^2,^*(), Jian ZHOU^3,⁴, Yang GAO^3,⁴

1. School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
2. College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University; Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100087, China
3. Department of Land Resources Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
4. Key Laboratory of Agricultural Land Quality, Monitoring and Control, Ministry of Land and Resources, Beijing 100193, China

Received:2015-10-01 Revised:2016-07-01 Online:2016-09-20 Published:2016-09-20
Contact: Xuegong XU E-mail:xxg@urban.pku.edu.cn
Supported by:
Foundation: National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41271102, No.41501087

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

“土地分离和共享框架”是协调物质生产和生态保护、促进土地可持续利用的重要理论。本文梳理了“土地分离与共享框架”和生态系统服务间关联,剖析生态系统服务应用于该框架的理论基础,结合美国典型土地共享案例,分析了土地利用策略选择对粮食生产、生物多样性、直接和间接生态系统服务的影响,并探讨了该框架对中国生态系统工程的启示。结果表明：随着人类对土地功能认知的不断深入,“土地分离与共享框架”的拓展表现为从单一的粮食供给服务需求演进到粮食供给服务和其他生态系统服务的综合需求。当粮食供给服务与其他服务处于权衡状态时,在生态脆弱、恢复力差的地区,不同生态系统服务间多处于凸权衡关系,一般适宜采用分离策略;在生态系统稳定、恢复力强的地区,不同生态系统服务多处于凹权衡关系,一般适宜采用共享策略。结合美国典型土地共享案例发现,其土地利用实践中选择土地功能共享策略是比较适宜的;生态系统服务作为政策评估工具,可在策略选择和评估实施效果中发挥一定作用。研究结果可为可持续土地利用提供理论与方法支撑,并为中国制定土地利用策略提供参考。

关键词: 土地分离与共享, 生态系统服务, 生物多样性, 粮食生产, 权衡

Abstract:

Land sparing versus sharing framework is an important theory for balancing food production and biodiversity conservation for sustainable land use. In this article, the relationship between the "land sparing versus sharing framework" and ecosystem services was summarized by revealing the theoretical basis of the combination of ecosystem services and land sparing versus sharing framework. The impacts of land-use decisions such as the USDA Conservation Reserve Program on food production, biodiversity, and other direct and indirect ecosystem services were analyzed. The application of this framework in Chinese environmental conservation projects was discussed, aiming at providing a reference for the coupling of land-use optimization and ecosystem services provision. The results show that: (1) The framework of "land sparing versus sharing" was based on multiple demands of ecosystem services from cultivated land. From an ecosystem service perspective, expansion of the framework can be seen as demand change from food production alone to multiple demands containing food production and other ecosystem services. (2) When food production service and other services are in a state of trade-off, in ecologically fragile and low resilience areas, where the relationship between ecosystem services shows a "convex tradeoff," land sparing strategy is often appropriate; whereas land sharing strategy is appropriate in ecologically stable and high resilience areas where the relationship between ecosystem services shows a "concave tradeoff." (3) Land sharing optimizes the demand of ecosystem services, according to the study of the land-use practices in the United States. Assessment of ecosystem services can be used as a tool to measure the effect of land-use policies and strategies.

Key words: land sparing versus sharing, ecosystem services, biodiversity, food production, trade-offs

冯喆, 许学工, 周建, 高阳. 基于生态系统服务视角的“土地分离与共享框架”解析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(9): 1100-1108.

Zhe FENG, Xuegong XU, Jian ZHOU, Yang GAO. Land sparing versus sharing framework from ecosystem service perspective[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(9): 1100-1108.

图/表 5

图1

图2

图3

表1

图4

参考文献 55

1	戴漂漂, 张旭珠, 刘云慧. 2015. 传粉动物多样性的保护与农业景观传粉服务的提升[J]. 生物多样性, 23(3): 408-418. doi: 10.17520/biods.2014248
	[Dai P P, Zhang X Z, Liu Y H.2015. Conserving pollinator diversity and improving pollination services in agricultural landscapes[J]. Biodiversity Science, 23(3): 408-418.] doi: 10.17520/biods.2014248
2	傅伯杰. 2013. 生态系统服务与生态安全[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
	Fu B J. 2013. Ecosystem service and ecological security[M]. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.
3	傅伯杰, 张立伟. 2014. 土地利用变化与生态系统服务: 概念、方法与进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 33(4): 441-446. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.04.001
	[Fu B J, Zhang L W.2014. Land-use change and ecosystem services: Concepts, methods and progress[J]. Progress in Geography, 33(4): 441-446.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.04.001
4	刘卫. 2015. 广州古城水系与城市发展关系研究[D]. 广州: 华南理工大学.
	Liu W. 2015. Study on the relationship between urban canal-system of ancient Guangzhou and city development[D]. Guangzhou, China: South China University of Technology.]
5	朱会义, 孙明慧. 2014. 土地利用集约化研究的回顾与未来工作重点[J]. 地理学报, 69(9): 1346-1357. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201409008
	[Zhu H Y, Sun M H.2014. Main progress in the research on land use intensification[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(9): 1346-1357.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201409008
6	左太安. 2014. 西南喀斯特山区石漠化贫困效应研究: 以毕节试验区为例[D]. 重庆: 西南大学.
	Zuo T A. 2014. Rocky desertification poverty effect in karst mountainous areas of Southwest China: A case study of Bijie experimental area[D]. Chongqing, China: Southwest University]
7	Aillery M, Shoemaker R, Caswell M.2001. Agriculture and ecosystem restoration in South Florida: Assessing trade-offs from water-retention development in the Everglades agricultural area[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(1): 183-195. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00146
8	Bach E M, Baer S G, Meyer C K, et al.2010. Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(12): 2182-2191. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.014
9	Bangsund D A, Hodur N M, Larry L F.2004. Agricultural and recreational impacts of the conservation reserve program in rural North Dakota, USA[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 71(4): 293-303. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.12.017
10	Barral M P, Benayas J M R, Meli P, et al.2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202: 223-231. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
11	Benayas J M R, Bullock J M.2012. Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land[J]. Ecosystems, 15(6): 883-899. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0
12	Bennett E M, Balvanera P.2007. The future of production systems in a globalized world[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(4): 191-198. doi: 10.1890%2F1540-9295%282007%295%5B191%3ATFOPSI%5D2.0.CO%3B2
13	Boisvert V.2015. Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis[J]. Ecosystem Services, 15: 134-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.004
14	Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts S G.2013. Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services for food security[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4): 230-238. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012
15	Cardador L, de Cáceres M, Giralt D, et al.2015. Tools for exploring habitat suitability for steppe birds under land use change scenarios[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200: 119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.013
16	Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, et al.1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 387: 253-260. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2
17	Cunningham S A, Attwood S J, Bawa K S, et al.2013. To close the yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 173: 20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.007
18	Edwards D P, Hodgson J A, Hamer K C, et al.2010. Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively[J]. Conservation Letters, 3(4): 236-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00107.x
19	Egan J F, Mortensen D A.2012. A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes[J]. Ecological Applications, 22(2): 459-471.
20	Egbert S L, Park S, Price K P, et al.2002. Using conservation reserve program maps derived from satellite imagery to characterize landscape structure[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 37(1-3): 141-156. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1699(02)00114-X
21	Fischer J, Abson D J, Butsic V, et al.2014. Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward[J]. Conservation Letters, 7(3): 149-157.
22	Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily G C, et al.2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(7): 380-385. doi: 10.1890/070019
23	Green R E, Cornell S J, Scharlemann J P W, et al.2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature[J]. Science, 307: 550-555.
24	Habel J C, Weisser W W, Eggermont H, et al.2013. Food security versus biodiversity protection: An example of land-sharing from East Africa[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(6-7): 1553-1555. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0479-3
25	Huang J, Tichit M, Poulot M, et al.2015. Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 149: 138-147. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020 pmid: 25463579
26	Lant C L.1991. Potential of the Conservation Reserve Program to control agricultural surface water pollution[J]. Environmental Management, 15(4): 507-518.
27	Law E A, Meijaard E, Bryan B A, et al.2015. Better land-use allocation outperforms land sparing and land sharing approaches to conservation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia[J]. Biological Conservation, 186: 276-286. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.004
28	Lerouge F, Sannen K, Gulinck H, et al.2016. Revisiting production and ecosystem services on the farm scale for evaluating land use alternatives[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 57: 50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.015
29	Lester S E, Costello C, Halpern B S, et al.2013. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning[J]. Marine Policy, 38: 80-89. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.022
30	Lusiana B, van Noordwijk M, Cadisch G.2012. Land sparing or sharing: Exploring livestock fodder options in combination with land use zoning and consequences for livelihoods and net carbon stocks using the FALLOW model[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 159: 145-160. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.006
31	Macchi L, Grau H R, Zelaya P V, et al.2013. Trade-offs between land use intensity and avian biodiversity in the Dry Chaco of Argentina: A tale of two gradients[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174: 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.011
32	Merckx T, Pereira H M.2014. Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding[J]. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(2): 95-103.
33	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis report[R]. Washington DC: Island Press.
34	Minang P A, van Noordwijk M.2013. Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: Leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins[J]. Land Use Policy, 31: 61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.025
35	Montoya-Molina S, Giraldo-Echeverri C, Montoya-Lerma J, et al.2016. Land sharing vs. land sparing in the dry Caribbean lowlands: A dung beetles' perspective[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 98: 204-212.
36	Newbold T, Hudson L N, Phillips H R P, et al.2014. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1792): 20141371. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1371
37	O'Connell J L, Johnson L A, Smith L M, et al.2012. Influence of land-use and conservation programs on wetland plant communities of the semiarid United States Great Plains[J]. Biological Conservation, 146(1): 108-115. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.030
38	Park S, Egbert S L.2005. Assessment of soil erodibility indices for conservation reserve program lands in southwestern Kansas using satellite imagery and GIS techniques[J]. Environmental Management, 36(6): 886-898. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0309-6
39	Phalan B, Balmford A, Green R E, et al.2011. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally[J]. Food Policy, 36(S1): S62-S71. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008
40	Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, et al.2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared[J]. Science, 333: 1289-1291. doi: 10.1126/science.1208742 pmid: 21885781
41	Quinn J E, Brandle J R, Johnson R J.2012. The effects of land sparing and wildlife-friendly practices on grassland bird abundance within organic farmlands[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 161: 10-16. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.021
42	Ramankutty N, Rhemtulla J.2012. Can intensive farming save nature[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9): 455.
43	Ramankutty N, Rhemtulla J.2013. Land sparing or land sharing: Context dependent[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4): 178. doi: 10.1890/13.WB.010
44	Rao M N, Yang Z M.2010. Groundwater impacts due to conservation reserve program in Texas County, Oklahoma[J]. Applied Geography, 30(3): 317-328. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.08.006
45	Reeder J D, Schuman G E, Bowman R A.1998. Soil C and N changes on conservation reserve program lands in the Central Great Plains[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 47(3-4): 339-349. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00122-6
46	Ribaudo M O.1989. Targeting the conservation reserve program to maximize water quality benefits[J]. Land Economics, 65(4): 320-332. doi: 10.2307/3146800
47	Rodríguez J P, Beard Jr T D, Bennett E M, et al.2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services[J]. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 28.
48	Scariot A.2013. Land sparing or land sharing: The missing link[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4): 177-178. doi: 10.1890/13.WB.008
49	Seefeldt S S, Conn J S, Zhang M C, et al.2010. Vegetation changes in conservation reserve program lands in interior Alaska[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 135(1-2): 119-126. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.09.001
50	United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (USDA FSA). 2008. Conservation Reserve Program: Summary and enrollment statistics[R]. Washington DC: USDA FSA: 7-9.
51	Verburg P H, Crossman N, Ellis E C, et al.2015. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective[J]. Anthropocene, 12: 29-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2015.09.004
52	Viglizzo E F, Frank F C.2006. Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: Tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service provision[J]. Ecological Economics, 57(1): 140-151. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.025
53	von Wehrden H, Abson D J, Beckmann M, et al.2014. Realigning the land-sharing/land-sparing debate to match conservation needs: Considering diversity scales and land-use history[J]. Landscape Ecology, 29(6): 941-948. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0038-7
54	Xu F, Linnebur K, Wang D H.2014. Torrefaction of conservation reserve program biomass: A techno-economic evaluation[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 61: 382-387. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.07.030
55	Yoshii C, Yamaura Y, Soga M, et al.2015. Comparable benefits of land sparing and sharing indicated by bird responses to stand-level plantation intensity in Hokkaido, northern Japan[J]. Journal of Forest Research, 20(1): 167-174. doi: 10.1007/s10310-014-0453-2

策略	项目	概述	生物多样性或生态系统服务		变化	采样地	生态系统状况	与粮食供给服务权衡/协同状态	理想策略选择	文献
土地共享	保护储备计划	1985年启动,对象为美国范围内自愿参与的农户	生物多样性		增加周边地区减少	阿拉斯加腹地新墨西哥等6州	脆弱稳健	权衡协同	分离 —	Seefeldt et al, 2010 O'Connell et al, 2012
			供给服务	粮食供给	减少	科罗拉多州柯林斯堡北达科塔州16县	稳健稳健	—	共享共享	Reeder et al, 1998 Bangsund et al, 2004
				粮食供给	减少	科罗拉多州柯林斯堡北达科塔州16县	稳健稳健	—	共享共享	Reeder et al, 1998 Bangsund et al, 2004
				生物能源材料供给	增加	堪萨斯州瓦利福尔斯	稳健	权衡	共享	Xu et al, 2014
				水供给	增加	俄克拉荷马州得克萨斯县	稳健	权衡	共享	Rao et al, 2010
			调节服务	水质净化	增加增加	阿拉斯加腹地伊利诺伊州费耶特县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Ribaudo, 1989 Lant, 1991
				水质净化	增加增加	阿拉斯加腹地伊利诺伊州费耶特县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Ribaudo, 1989 Lant, 1991
				土壤保持	增加增加	阿拉斯加腹地堪萨斯州西南部六县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Seefeldt et al, 2010 Park et al, 2005
				土壤保持	增加增加	阿拉斯加腹地堪萨斯州西南部六县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Seefeldt et al, 2010 Park et al, 2005
				野生动物栖息地	增加	阿拉斯加腹地堪萨斯州芬尼县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Seefeldt et al, 2010 Egbert et al, 2002
				野生动物栖息地	增加	阿拉斯加腹地堪萨斯州芬尼县	脆弱稳健	权衡	共享	Seefeldt et al, 2010 Egbert et al, 2002
			支持服务	土壤碳	增加	科罗拉多州柯林斯堡	稳健	权衡	共享	Reeder et al, 1998
				土壤磷	增加	内布拉斯加州盖奇县和萨利内县	稳健	权衡	共享	Bach et al, 2010
				土壤氮	增加	科罗拉多州柯林斯堡	稳健	权衡	共享	Reeder et al, 1998
			文化服务	娱乐狩猎	增加	北达科塔州16县	稳健	权衡	共享	Bangsund et al, 2004

[1]	刘紫玟, 尹丹, 黄庆旭, 何春阳, 薛飞. 生态系统服务在土地利用规划研究和应用中的进展——基于文献计量和文本分析法[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(2): 236-247.
[2]	马冰滢, 黄姣, 李双成. 基于生态-经济权衡的京津冀城市群土地利用优化配置[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(1): 26-37.
[3]	赵文武, 刘月, 冯强, 王亚萍, 杨思琪. 人地系统耦合框架下的生态系统服务[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(1): 139-151.
[4]	孙传谆, 甄霖, 王超, 胡洁, 杜秉贞. 天然林资源保护一期工程生态成效评估——以甘肃小陇山地区为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(6): 732-740.
[5]	徐卫华, 杨琰瑛, 张路, 肖燚, 王效科, 欧阳志云. 区域生态承载力预警评估方法及案例研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(3): 306-312.
[6]	武文欢, 彭建, 刘焱序, 胡熠娜. 鄂尔多斯市生态系统服务权衡与协同分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(12): 1571-1581.
[7]	丁婧祎, 赵文武, 王军, 房学宁. 降水和植被变化对径流影响的尺度效应——以陕北黄土丘陵沟壑区为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(8): 1039-1051.
[8]	刘利花, 尹昌斌, 钱小平. 稻田生态系统服务价值测算方法与应用——以苏州市域为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(1): 92-99.
[9]	孙鸿烈, 陈宜瑜, 于贵瑞, 于秀波. 国际重大研究计划与中国生态系统研究展望——中国生态大讲堂百期学术演讲暨2014年春季研讨会评述[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(7): 865-873.
[10]	傅伯杰, 张立伟. 土地利用变化与生态系统服务：概念、方法与进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(4): 441-446.
[11]	王玉婷, 丁圣彦, 梁国付. 农田背景下景观结构对半自然生境生物多样性的多尺度影响[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(12): 1704-1716.
[12]	魏晓旭, 赵军, 魏伟, 颉斌斌. 基于县域单元的中国生态经济系统协调度及空间演化[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(11): 1535-1545.
[13]	魏晓旭, 赵军, 魏伟, 颉斌斌. 基于县域单元的中国生态经济系统协调度及空间演化[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(11): 1535-1545.
[14]	马程, 李双成, 刘金龙, 高阳, 王阳. 基于SOFM网络的京津冀地区生态系统服务分区[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(9): 1383-1393.
[15]	戴君虎, 王焕炯, 王红丽, 陈春阳. 生态系统服务价值评估理论框架与生态补偿实践[J]. 地理科学进展, 2012, 31(7): 963-969.

基于生态系统服务视角的“土地分离与共享框架”解析

Land sparing versus sharing framework from ecosystem service perspective

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 55

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10