流域系统综合模拟与情景分析——自然地理综合研究的新范式?

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.08.001

Abstract

Abstract:

In the context of the changing global environment and rapidly developing economies, the conflict between economic development and resource/environmental conservation is becoming severe. To resolve or relieve the conflict, decision makers need a new knowledge system and scientific decision-making tools. The integrated study of physical geography, which takes the spatial variation and interaction processes of natural geographic elements as main research contents, has the responsibility of providing the new knowledge system and scientific decision-making tools for decision makers. As a relatively closed and independent spatial unit, the watershed provides a natural spatial unit for decision making. The spatial distribution of geographic elements and the mechanism of their interaction processes inside a watershed become the new knowledge system to resolve or relieve this increasingly intensified conflict. Integrated watershed modeling has become an effective way to build this new knowledge system. The effectiveness of different decisions considering the economic and environmental benefits should be evaluated for decision makers before a final decision, which can be provided by a scenario analysis based on integrated watershed modeling. Therefore, from the perspective of resolving or relieving the conflict between economic development and resource/environmental conservation, integrated watershed modeling and scenario analysis is developing into a new paradigm for the integrated study of physical geography in the new era. In this article, the scientific challenges of the integrated study of physical geography based on integrated watershed modeling and scenario analysis were discussed through two case studies of scenario analysis for watershed management, which basically represent two types of questions that decision makers are concerned with. The first type of questions is which kinds of best management practices (BMPs) should be selected, where these BMPs should be allocated, and what economic and environmental benefits are after the implementation of these BMPs. The second type of questions is that under the given objectives of economic and environmental benefits, where the selected BMPs should be allocated and how large spatial extents they should occupy. In conclusion, the integrated study of physical geography based on integrated watershed modeling and scenario analysis should have the characteristics of systematization, spatialization, quantification, ease of use, and decision-making friendly.

Key words: integrated study of physical geography, watershed simulation, integrated watershed modeling, scenario analysis, systematization, ease of use, decision-making friendly

ZHU A-Xing, ZHU Liangjun, SHI Yaxing, QIN Chengzhi, LIU Junzhi. Integrated watershed modeling and scenario analysis: A new paradigm for integrated study of physical geography?[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(8): 1111-1122.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

References 12

12	[ Liu J Z, Zhu A X, Qin C Z , et al. 2015. Parallel computing of watershed process simulation guided by geographical laws. Journal of Geo-information Science, 17(5):506-514. ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2015.00506
13	刘焱序, 杨思琪, 赵文武 , 等. 2018. 变化背景下的当代中国自然地理学: 2017全国自然地理学大会述评[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(1):163-171.
	[ Liu Y X, Yang S Q, Zhao W W , et al. 2018. Contemporary Chinese physical geography in the context of change: Review of the 2017 National Physical Geography Conference. Progress in Geography, 37(1):163-171. ]
14	芮孝芳 . 2017. 论流域水文模型[J]. 水利水电科技进展, 37(4):1-7, 58.
	[ Rui X F . 2017. Discussion of watershed hydrological model. Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources, 37(4):1-7, 58. ]
15	宋长青 . 2016. 地理学研究范式的思考[J]. 地理科学进展, 35(1):1-3. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.01.001
	[ Song C Q . 2016. On paradigms of geographical research. Progress in Geography, 35(1):1-3. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.01.001
16	王平, 朱阿兴, 蔡强国 , 等. 2009. 概念性土壤侵蚀模型的建立及在紫色土小流域的应用[J]. 农业工程学报, 25(12):80-87, 401.
	[ Wang P, Zhu A X, Cai Q G , et al. 2009. Establishment of conceptual soil erosion model and application in purple soil watershed. Transactions of the CSAE, 25(12):80-87, 401. ]
17	王尚义, 李玉轩, 马义娟 . 2015. 地理学发展视角下的历史流域研究[J]. 地理研究, 34(1):27-38.
	[ Wang S Y, Li Y X, Ma Y J . 2015. Historical river basin study under the perspective of developmental geography. Geographical Research, 34(1):27-38. ]
18	吴辉, 刘永波, 秦承志 , 等. 2016. 流域最佳管理措施情景优化算法的并行化[J]. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版), 41(2):202-207. doi: 10.13203/j.whugis20140048
	[ Wu H, Liu Y B, Qin C Z , et al. 2016. Parallelization of an optimization algorithm for beneficial watershed management practices. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 41(2):202-207. ] doi: 10.13203/j.whugis20140048
19	吴辉, 刘永波, 朱阿兴 , 等. 2013. 流域最佳管理措施空间配置优化研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 32(4):570-579. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.009
1	蔡运龙 . 2010. 当代自然地理学态势[J]. 地理研究, 29(1):1-12.
	[ Cai Y L . 2010. New perspectives on physical geography. Geographical Research, 29(1):1-12. ]
19	[ Wu H, Liu Y B, Zhu A X , et al. 2013. Review of spatial optimization algorithms in BMPs placement at watershed scale. Progress in Geography, 32(4):570-579. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.009
20	杨大文, 徐宗学, 李哲 , 等. 2018. 水文学研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(1):36-45.
2	蔡运龙, 陆大道, 周一星 , 等. 2004. 中国地理科学的国家需求与发展战略[J]. 地理学报, 59(6):811-819.
	[ Cai Y L, Lu D D, Zhou Y X , et al. 2004. National demands for and development strategies of Chinese geography. Acta Geographica Sinica, 59(6):811-819. ]
20	[ Yang D W, Xu Z X, Li Z , et al. 2018. Progress and prospect of hydrological sciences. Progress in Geography, 37(1):36-45. ]
21	周慧平, 高超, 朱晓东 . 2005. 关键源区识别: 农业非点源污染控制方法[J]. 生态学报, 25(12):3368-3374.
	[ Zhou H P, Gao C, Zhu X D . 2005. Identification of critical source areas: an efficient way for agricultural non-point source pollution control. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(12):3368-3374. ]
22	朱阿兴, 陈腊娇, 秦承志 , 等. 2012 a. 水土流失治理新范式: 基于流域过程模拟和情景分析的方法[J]. 应用生态学报, 23(7):1883-1890.
3	蔡运龙, 宋长青, 冷疏影 . 2009. 中国自然地理学的发展趋势与优先领域[J]. 地理科学, 29(5):619-626.
	[ Cai Y L, Song C Q, Leng S Y . 2009. Future development trends and priority areas of physical geography in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 29(5):619-626. ]
22	[ Zhu A X, Chen L J, Qin C Z , et al. 2012 a. New paradigm for soil and water conservation: A method based on watershed process modeling and scenario analysis. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(7):1883-1890. ]
23	朱阿兴, 陈腊娇, 秦承志 , 等. 2012 b. 土壤性状空间变化的定量推测和水土流失治理的新范式 [M] // 蔡强国, 朱阿兴, 毕华兴, 等. 中国主要水蚀区水土流失综合调控与治理范式. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社: 267-286.
4	陈腊娇, 朱阿兴, 秦承志 , 等. 2011. 流域生态水文模型研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 30(5):535-544. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2011.05.003
	[ Chen L J, Zhu A X, Qin C Z , et al. 2011. Review of eco-hydrological models of watershed scale. Progress in Geography, 30(5):535-544. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2011.05.003
23	[ Zhu A X, Chen L J, Qin C Z , et al. 2012 b. Prediction of spatial distribution of soil properties and the new paradigm for integrated soil and water conservation // Cai Q G, Zhu A X, Bi H X, et al. Paradigms for integrated soil and water conservation over main water erosion regions in China. Beijing, China: Water & Power Press: 267-286. ]
24	Arnold J G, Allen P M, Volk M , et al. 2010. Assessment of different representations of spatial variability on SWAT model performance[J]. Transactions of the ASABE, 53(5):1433-1443.
5	傅伯杰 . 2017. 地理学: 从知识, 科学到决策[J]. 地理学报, 72(11):1923-1932.
	[ Fu B J . 2017. Geography: From knowledge, science to decision making support. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(11):1923-1932. ]
25	Arnold J G, Srinivasan R, Muttiah R S , et al. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development[J]. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 34(1):73-89.
26	Berry J K, Delgado J A, Pierce F J , et al. 2005. Applying spatial analysis for precision conservation across the landscape[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60(6):363-370.
6	傅伯杰 . 2018. 新时代自然地理学发展的思考[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(1):1-7.
	[ Fu B J . 2018. Thoughts on the recent development of physical geography. Progress in Geography, 37(1):1-7. ]
27	Bieger K, Arnold J G, Rathjens H , et al. 2017. Introduction to SWAT+, a completely restructured version of the soil and water assessment tool[J]. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 53(1):115-130.
28	Bingner R L, Theurer F D . 2001. AnnAGNPS: Estimating sediment yield by particle size for sheet and rill erosion [C]// Proceedings of the 7th Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno. Nevada, USA: Subcommittee on Sedimentation Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data.
7	傅伯杰, 赵文武, 陈利顶 . 2006. 地理—生态过程研究的进展与展望[J]. 地理学报, 61(11):1123-1131.
	[ Fu B J, Zhao W W, Chen L D . 2006. Progress and perspective of geographical-ecological processes. Acta Geographica Sinica, 61(11):1123-1131. ]
29	De Roo A P J, Wesseling C G, Ritsema C J . 1996. LISEM: A single-event physically based hydrological and soil erosion model for drainage basins. I: Theory, input and output[J]. Hydrological Processes, 10(8):1107-1117.
30	Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S , et al. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-Ⅱ[J]. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2):182-197.
31	Duriancik L F, Bucks D, Dobrowolski J P , et al. 2008. The first five years of the conservation effects assessment project[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(6):185A-197A.
8	江净超, 余洁, 秦承志 , 等. 2017. 知识驱动下的水文模型参数智能化设置方法[J]. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版), 42(4):525-530.
	[ Jiang J C, Yu J, Qin C Z , et al. 2017. A knowledge-driven method for intelligent setting of parameters in hydrological modeling. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 42(4):525-530. ]
9	冷疏影, 宋长青 . 2005. 陆地表层系统地理过程研究回顾与展望[J]. 地球科学进展, 20(6):600-606.
	[ Leng S Y, Song C Q . 2005. Review of land surface geographical process study and prospects in China. Advances in Earth Science, 20(6):600-606. ]
32	Fink A, Schlake O . 2000. Scenario management: An approach for strategic foresight[J]. Competitive Intelligence Review, 11(1):37-45.
33	Gaddis E J B, Voinov A, Seppelt R , et al. 2014. Spatial optimization of best management practices to attain water quality targets[J]. Water Resources Management, 28(6):1485-1499.
34	Gitau M W, Veith T L, Gburek W J . 2004. Farm-level optimization of BMP placement for cost-effective pollution reduction[J]. Transactions of the ASAE, 47(6):1923-1931.
10	刘宝元, 郭索彦, 李智广 , 等. 2013. 中国水力侵蚀抽样调查[J]. 中国水土保持, 34(10):26-34.
	[ Liu B Y, Guo S Y, Li Z G , et al. 2013. Sampling survey of water erosion in China. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 34(10):26-34. ]
35	Hsieh P H, Kuo J T, Wu E M Y , et al. 2010. Optimal best management practice placement strategies for nonpoint source pollution management in the Fei-Tsui Reservoir Watershed[J]. Environmental Engineering Science, 27(6):441-449.
36	Kalcic M M, Frankenberger J, Chaubey I . 2015. Spatial optimization of six conservation practices using swat in tile - drained agricultural watersheds[J]. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 51(4):956-972.
11	刘军志, 朱阿兴, 秦承志 , 等. 2013. 分布式水文模型的并行计算研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 32(4):538-547. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.006
	[ Liu J Z, Zhu A X, Qin C Z , et al. 2013. Review on parallel computing of distributed hydrological models. Progress in Geography, 32(4):538-547. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.006
37	Li D R, Tong Q X, Li R X , et al. 2012. Current issues in high-resolution earth observation technology[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 55(7):1043-1051.
38	Li R K, Zhu A X, Song X , et al. 2012. Effects of spatial aggregation of soil spatial information on watershed hydrological modelling[J]. Hydrological Processes, 26(9):1390-1404.
39	Li T J, Wang G Q, Chen J , et al. 2011. Dynamic parallelization of hydrological model simulations[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(12):1736-1746.
40	Liu J Z, Zhu A X, Liu Y B , et al. 2014. A layered approach to parallel computing for spatially distributed hydrological modeling[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 51:221-227.
41	Liu J Z, Zhu A X, Qin C Z , et al. 2016. A two-level parallelization method for distributed hydrological models[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 80:175-184.
42	Liu Y, Guo H C, Zhang Z X , et al. 2007. An optimization method based on scenario analysis for watershed management under uncertainty[J]. Environmental Management, 39(5):678-690.
43	Parajuli P B, Mankin K R, Barnes P L . 2008. Applicability of targeting vegetative filter strips to abate fecal bacteria and sediment yield using SWAT[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 95(10):1189-1200.
44	Qin C Z, Gao H R, Zhu L J , et al. 2018. Spatial optimization of watershed best management practices based on slope position units[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 73(5):504-517.
45	Rajib M A, Merwade V, Kim I L , et al. 2016. SWAT Share - A web platform for collaborative research and education through online sharing, simulation and visualization of SWAT models[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75:498-512.
46	Ran Y, Li X, Lu L . 2010. Evaluation of four remote sensing based land cover products over China[J]. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31(2):391-401.
47	Renschler C S, Lee T . 2005. Spatially distributed assessment of short- and long-term impacts of multiple best management practices in agricultural watersheds[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60(6):446-456.
48	Richardson C W, Bucks D A, Sadler E J . 2008. The conservation effects assessment project benchmark watersheds: Synjournal of preliminary findings[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(6):590-604.
49	Shen Z Y, Chen L, Xu L . 2013. A topography analysis incorporated optimization method for the selection and placement of best management practices[J]. PLoS One, 8(1):e54520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054520.
50	Srivastava P, Hamlett J M, Robillard P D . 2003. Watershed optimization of agricultural best management practices: Continuous simulation versus design storms[J]. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39:1043-1054.
51	Tague C L, Band L E . 2004. RHESSys: Regional hydro-ecologic simulation system-an object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling[J]. Earth Interactions, 8(19):1-42.
52	Turpin N, Bontems P, Rotillon G , et al. 2005. AgriBMPWater: Systems approach to environmentally acceptable farming[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20:187-196.
53	Vivoni E R, Mascaro G, Mniszewski S , et al. 2011. Real-world hydrologic assessment of a fully-distributed hydrological model in a parallel computing environment[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 409(1):483-496.
54	Wang H, Fu X, Wang G , et al. 2011. A common parallel computing framework for modeling hydrological processes of river basins[J]. Parallel Computing, 37(6):302-315.
55	Wigmosta M S, Vail L W, Lettenmaier D P . 1994. A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrain[J]. Water Resources Research, 30(6):1665-1680.
56	Wu H, Zhu A X, Liu J Z , et al. 2018. Best management practices optimization at watershed scale: Incorporating spatial topology among fields[J]. Water Resources Management, 32(1):155-177.
57	Yalew S, van Griensven A, Ray N , et al. 2013. Distributed computation of large scale SWAT models on the grid[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 41:223-230.
58	Yang G X, Best E P H . 2015. Spatial optimization of watershed management practices for nitrogen load reduction using a modeling-optimization framework[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 161:252-260.
59	Yang Q, Meng F R, Zhao Z , et al. 2009. Assessing the impacts of flow diversion terraces on stream water and sediment yields at a watershed level using SWAT model[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 132(1-2):23-31.
60	Zhu A X, Wang P, Zhu T X , et al. 2013. Modeling runoff and soil erosion in the Three-Gorge Reservoir drainage area of China using limited plot data[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 492:163-175.
61	Zhu L J, Qin C Z, Zhu A X , et al. 2019. Effects of different spatial configuration units for spatial optimization of watershed best management practices scenarios[J]. Water, 2019,11(2):262. doi: 10.3390/w11020262.
12	刘军志, 朱阿兴, 秦承志 , 等. 2015. 论地理规律对流域过程模拟并行计算的指导作用[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 17(5):506-514. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2015.00506

管理措施情景	环境效益(减沙)/(t·km^-2·a^-1)	经济效益
管理措施情景	环境效益(减沙)/(t·km^-2·a^-1)	投资回收年限/a	回收后年收益/元
全流域坡耕地改水平梯田	23401	13	16500
全流域坡耕地改等高植物篱	19839	1	14456
全流域综合治理	20290	7	71122
关键源区综合治理	24025	7	32360

环境目标(减沙) /(t·km^-2·a^-1)	退耕还林措施情景	经济效益
环境目标(减沙) /(t·km^-2·a^-1)	退耕还林措施情景	总投入/元	投资回收年限/a	回收后年收益/元
10	12%的坡耕地改林地	139500	6	1046
20	30%的坡耕地改林地	361500	6	2711
30	55%的坡耕地改林地	661500	6	4961
40	80%的坡耕地和12%的梯田改林地	1341000	9	10058
50	80%的坡耕地和54%的梯田改林地	2782500	9	20868

[1]	Dalong LI, Shaofeng JIA, Aifeng LV, Wenbin ZHU. Regional difference of cost effectiveness of low impact development (LID) technical facilities in Chinese cities [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(11): 1402-1412.
[2]	SHAN Yuhong, ZHU Xinyan. Multi-agents Model for Simulation of Urban Residential Space Evolution [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2011, 30(8): 956-966.
[3]	WAN Rongrong, YANG Guishan. Discussion on Some Issues of Hydrological Effects of Watershed Land Use and Land Cover Change [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2005, 24(3): 25-33.

Integrated watershed modeling and scenario analysis: A new paradigm for integrated study of physical geography?

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 12

Related Articles 3

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0