河流岸线生态服务功能评价指标体系与评价方法研究

张登成; 王中敏; 李亚俊; 樊皓; 刘扬扬

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20230352

河流岸线生态服务功能评价指标体系与评价方法研究

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20230352

长江水资源保护科学研究所

基金项目: 水利部重大科技项目（SKS-2022040）

详细信息

作者简介:
张登成（1990—），男，工程师，主要从事河湖水生态保护与修复、水利水电工程环境影响评价研究，569095890@qq.com

通讯作者:
王中敏（1981—），女，正高级工程师，主要从事水利水电工程环境影响评价、环境保护设计研究，miely@163.com

中图分类号: X522
计量
- 文章访问数: 341
- HTML全文浏览量: 441
- PDF下载量: 117
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-05-09

Research on the index system and evaluation method for ecological services of river shorelines

Changjiang Water Resources Protection Institute

摘要

摘要:
河流岸线是构成河流自然生态空间的重要组成部分，近年来受人为活动影响，河流岸线生态服务功能受到破坏，为精准开展河流岸线修复，亟需制定有针对性的河流岸线生态服务功能评价指标体系和评价方法。对河流岸线的类型、结构进行了分析，在国内相关研究成果以及水利、生态环境、海洋等行业有关技术规范的基础上，依据科学性、全面性、独立性和可操作性原则，经过初步梳理和综合遴选筛选了河流岸线生态功能评价指标；综合相关技术规范以及研究成果，确定了各评价指标的效用赋值，并制定河流岸线生态服务功能评价方法。结果表明：1）河流岸线可分为生态保护型岸线与生态修复型岸线，前者可细分为植被良好型、沙漠型以及岩石型3类，后者可细分为堤防型、农田型、村落型、养殖塘型、城镇型、河口型以及复合型7类。河流岸线具有防洪、控制侵蚀、保护水质、生物栖息、景观功能5项生态服务功能。2）构建的河流岸线生态服务功能评价指标体系包括目标层、准则层和指标层，其中目标层为河流岸线生态服务功能，准则层为河流岸线所具备的5项生态服务功能，指标层包括防洪达标率、堤防安全、植被覆盖率、岸坡稳定性、排污口布局合理程度、生态缓冲带状况、生物多样性指数、植物群落状况、水鸟状况、景观生态价值、景观舒适度11项评价指标，对各项指标根据总体评价进行五级效能赋值。3）运用层次分析法确定各评价指标的权重，采用多属性效用理论计算河流岸线生态服务功能综合指数，将河流岸线生态服务功能划分为优、良、中、差、极差5个等级，以评价河流岸线生态服务功能状况。研究可为识别河流岸线生态问题、评估河流岸线生态修复成效、健全河流岸线管理长效机制等提供依据和参考。
- 河流岸线 /
- 生态服务功能 /
- 评价指标体系 /
- 层次分析法 /
- 多属性效用理论
Abstract:
River shorelines are important components of the natural ecological space of rivers. In recent years, human activities have affected the ecological service function of river shorelines. In order to accurately carry out the restoration, it is urgent to develop a targeted evaluation index system and evaluation methods for the ecological service function of river shorelines. The type and structure of riverfronts were analyzed. Based on the relevant domestic research results and relevant technical specifications of water conservancy, environmental protection, marine and other industries, the ecological function evaluation indicators of riverfronts were preliminarily sorted out and comprehensively selected according to the principles of scientificity, comprehensiveness, independence and operability. Based on relevant technical specifications and research results, the utility values of each evaluation index were determined, and the evaluation method of riverfront ecological service function was developed. The results indicated that: 1) River shoreline could be divided into ecological protection type and ecological restoration type, the former could be subdivided into good vegetation type, desert type and rock type, and the latter could be subdivided into 7 types, including dike type, farmland type, village type, aquaculture pond type, town type, river mouth type and compound type. The riverfront had five ecological service functions: flood control, erosion control, water quality protection, biological habitat and landscape functions. 2) The constructed evaluation index system of river shoreline ecological service function included target layer, criterion layer and index layer. The target layer was the river shoreline ecological service function, and the criterion layer was the five ecological service functions corresponding to river shorelines. The index layer included flood control compliance rate, dike safety, vegetation coverage, bank slope stability, reasonable degree of sewage outfall layout, ecological buffer zone status, biological diversity index, plant community status, water bird status, landscape ecological value, and landscape comfort. The utility values of each indicator were defined as five grades based on the overall evaluation. 3) AHP was used to determine the weight of each evaluation index, and multi-attribute utility theory was used to calculate the comprehensive index of riverfront ecological service function, and the riverfront ecological service function was divided into five grades, i.e. excellent, good, medium, poor and extremely poor, so as to evaluate the status of riverfront ecological service function. This study could provide basis and reference for identifying ecological issues, evaluating the effectiveness of ecological restoration, and improving long-term mechanisms for river shoreline management.
- shoreline of rivers /
- ecological service function /
- evaluation index system /
- analytic hierarchy process /
- multi-attribute utility theory

HTML全文

图 1 典型河流岸线垂直剖面结构示意

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of vertical profile structure of typical river shorelines

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 河流岸线生态服务功能评价指标层次结构

Figure 2. Hierarchy structure of ecological service function evaluation indicators for river shorelines

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 各评价指标赋分标准和效用赋值

Table 1. Scoring standards and utility values for each evaluation indicator

准则层	指标层	赋分标准	评价等级	效用赋值	准则层	指标层	赋分标准	评价等级	效用赋值
防洪功能	防洪达标率	≤50%	极差	−1	保护水质	生态缓冲带状况	A_a不低于80%，W_plant为10~15 m（单侧）	良好	0.5
		50%~70%	差	−0.5	保护水质	生态缓冲带状况	植被均为森林等乔木， W_plant≥15 m（单侧）	最佳	1
		70%~85%	一般	0	生物栖息	生物多样性指数	<1	极差	−1
		85%~90%	良好	0.5			1~2	差	−0.5
		≥95%	最佳	1			2~3	一般	0
	堤防安全	极不安全	极差	−1			3~4	良好	0.5
		不安全	差	−0.5			≥4	最佳	1
		基本安全	一般	0		植物群落状况	难以观测到植物	极差	−1
		较为安全	良好	0.5			植物种类单一，植株数量很少且稀疏	差	−0.5
		非常安全	最佳	1			植物种类尚多，植株数量不多且散布	一般	0
控制侵蚀	植被覆盖率	≤5%	极差	−1			植物种类多，配置较合理，植株数量多	良好	0.5
		5%~25%	差	−0.5			植物种类很多，配置合理，植株密闭	最佳	1
		25%~50%	一般	0		水鸟状况	任何时候都没有见到	极差	−1
		50%~75%	良好	0.5			种类少，难以观测到	差	−0.5
		>75%	最佳	1			种类、数量比较少，偶尔可见	一般	0
	岸坡稳定性	0	极差	−1			种类、数量比较多，常见	良好	0.5
		<25	差	−0.5			种类、数量多，有珍稀鸟类	最佳	1
		25~50	一般	0	景观功能	景观生态价值	缺少自然或人文景观，景观连通性差	极差	−1
		50~75	良好	0.5			自然或人文景观匮乏，景观连通性一般	差	−0.5
		75~100	最佳	1			自然或人文景观观赏价值一般，区域连通性强，没有代表性	一般	0
保护水质	排污口布局合理程度	饮用水源一级保护区存在排污口，D>0.5个/km，L_s_max>2 km，或L_t_max>1/2河宽	极差	−1			自然或人文景观完善，观赏价值高，有区域代表性	良好	0.5
		饮用水源二级保护区存在排污口，D为0.2~0.5个/km，L_s_max>1 km，或L_t_max介于1/4~1/2河宽	差	−0.5			自然或人文景观价值高，地域特色明显，具有水利科普宣传价值	最佳	1
		饮用水源准保护区存在排污口，D为0.1~0.2个/km，L_s_max≤1 km，或 L_t_max小于1/4河宽	一般	0		景观舒适度	景观破坏严重，岸线侵占问题突出	极差	−1
		饮用水水源保护区内无排污口，D<0.1个/km，仅排污控制区有排污口，且不影响邻近水功能区水质达标，其他水功能区无入河排污口	良好	0.5			自然景观与人文景观不协调，观赏性差，缺少游憩、服务和管理设施	差	−0.5
		河流水域岸线内无排污口	最佳	1			环境较协调，景观体验一般，游憩、服务、管理设施建设不完善	一般	0
	生态缓冲带状况	乔木面积占比（A_a）低于20%，植被带宽度（W_plant）<2 m（单侧）	极差	−1			环境质量好，公众满意度较高，游憩、服务、管理设施建设完善	良好	0.5
		A_a不低于20%，W_plant为2~5 m（单侧）	差	−0.5			景观和谐，环境质量好，公众满意度高，游憩、服务和管理设施完善	最佳	1
		A_a不低于50%，W_plant为5~10 m（单侧）	一般	0			景观和谐，环境质量好，公众满意度高，游憩、服务和管理设施完善	最佳	1

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 河流岸线生态服务功能综合指数的评价标准

Table 2. Evaluation criteria for ecological service function comprehensive index of river shorelines

ESI	综合评价等级
(0.5, 1]	优
(0, 0.5]	良
0	中
[−0.5, 0）	差
[−1, −0.5）	极差

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(31)

[1]	唐晓岚, 周铭杰, 杨阳, 等. 长江南京河段岸线景观资源保护对策探讨[J]. 人民长江,2021,52(11):28-33. TANG X L, ZHOU M J, YANG Y, et al. Discussion on countermeasures for landscape resources protection along Nanjing section of Yangtze River[J]. Yangtze River,2021,52(11):28-33.
[2]	廖迎娣, 张欢, 侯利军, 等. 江苏长江岸线生态修复评价指标体系研究[J]. 生态学报,2021,41(10):3910-3916. LIAO Y D, ZHANG H, HOU L J, et al. Discussion on evaluation indicator system of ecological remediation along the shoreline of Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2021,41(10):3910-3916.
[3]	段学军, 邹辉, 王晓龙, 等. 大河岸线生态完整性内涵及评估方法研究: 以长江岸线为例[J/Ol]. 生态学报, 2023. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2031.Q.20230321.1708.016.html. DUAN X J, ZHOU H, WANG X L, et al. Implication and assessment of the ecological integrity of riverfront along great rivers: taking the Yangtze River as an example[J/OL]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2023. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2031.Q.20230321.1708.016.html.
[4]	郭二辉, 杨喜田, 陈利顶. 河岸带生态功能认知及河流景观偏好的调查研究[J]. 中国园林,2017,33(1):95-99. GUO E H, YANG X T, CHEN L D. Research of resident's perceptions to ecological functions of riparian buffers and their preferences for river landscape[J]. Chinese Landscape Architecture,2017,33(1):95-99.
[5]	WEI L, ZHOU L, SUN D Q, et al. Evaluating the impact of urban expansion on the habitat quality and constructing ecological security patterns: a case study of Jiziwan in the Yellow River Basin, China[J]. Ecological Indicators,2022,145:109544. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109544
[6]	CHEN D, HOU L J, LIAO Y D. Strengthening efficient usage, protection, and restoration of Yangtze River shoreline[J]. Water Science and Engineering,2021,14(4):257-259. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2021.10.001
[7]	杨成刚, 杨振, 王伟. 基于空间形态的河道岸线利用模式分类及应用[J]. 人民长江,2020,51(11):10-15. YANG C G, YANG Z, WANG W. Classification and application of utilization mode of rivers shoreline based on spatial morphology[J]. Yangtze River,2020,51(11):10-15.
[8]	杨芳, 徐建锋, 廖嘉玲, 等. 四川省河流岸线开发利用与保护区划研究: 以沱江流域为例[J]. 人民长江,2020,51(8):8-12. YANG F, XU J F, LIAO J L, et al. Exploitation and zoning of river shoreline functional area in Sichuan Province: case of Tuojiang River Basin[J]. Yangtze River,2020,51(8):8-12.
[9]	徐宜雪, 魏伟伟, 李春华, 等. 长潭水库湖滨带、缓冲带范围划定及生态修复实践[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2022,12(6):2105-2112. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210511 XU Y X, WEI W W, LI C H, et al. Delimitation and ecological restoration practice of lake littoral zone and lake buffer zone of Changtan Reservoir[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2022,12(6):2105-2112. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210511
[10]	陈达, 钟菁, 吴腾, 等. 江苏省长江岸线利用率影响因素分析[J]. 水资源保护,2022,38(3):17-24. CHEN D, ZHONG J, WU T, et al. Factors influencing utilization rate of Yangtze River shoreline in Jiangsu Province[J]. Water Resources Protection,2022,38(3):17-24.
[11]	王洪铸, 宋春雷, 刘学勤, 等. 巢湖湖滨带概况及环湖岸线和水向湖滨带生态修复方案[J]. 长江流域资源与环境,2012,21(增刊2):62-68. WANG H Z, SONG C L, LIU X Q, et al. Lakeshore overview of Lake Chaohu and ecological rehabilitation schemes for shoreline and littoral zones[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin,2012,21(Suppl 2):62-68.
[12]	李志华, 孙兆地, 马鑫, 等. 徐州市奎河硬质护岸生态化改造方案研究[J]. 人民长江,2020,51(增刊1):61-65. LI Z H, SUN Z D, MA X, et al. Study on ecological reconstruction scheme of Kuihe hard bank protection in Xuzhou City[J]. Yangtze River,2020,51(Suppl 1):61-65.
[13]	孙晨, 陈金杭, 苏晨, 等. 湖泊水陆交错带生境改善措施研究与探讨[C]//中国环境科学学会2021年科学技术年会论文集(二). 北京: 中国环境科学学会, 2021: 307-311.
[14]	刘瑞霞, 孙菲, 肖满, 等. 浙江嘉善东部区域盛家湾河道缓冲带及水生态修复实践[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2022,12(6):2095-2104. LIU R X, SUN F, XIAO M, et al. Riverine buffer zone and water ecological restoration practice of Shengjiawan River course in eastern Jiashan County of Zhejiang Province[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2022,12(6):2095-2104.
[15]	许盛凯, 朱韻洁, 袁哲, 等. 长江干流岸线缓冲带生态构建方案研究: 以长江江阴段为例[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2022,12(2):581-589. XU S K, ZHU Y J, YUAN Z, et al. Research on ecological construction scheme of the shoreline buffer zone of the mainstream of the Yangtze River: take the Jiangyin Section of the Yangtze River as an example[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2022,12(2):581-589.
[16]	廖迎娣, 张欢, 张诗敏, 等. 江苏长江岸线生态修复评价指标体系的应用[J]. 水运工程,2022(8):141-147. LIAO Y D, ZHANG H, ZHANG S M, et al. Application of the evaluation index system for ecological remediation of the Yangtze River shoreline in Jiangsu Province[J]. Port & Waterway Engineering,2022(8):141-147.
[17]	QIAN L Y, WANG F F, CAO W, et al. Ecological health assessment and sustainability prediction in coastal area: a case study in Xiamen Bay, China[J]. Ecological Indicators,2023,148:110047. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110047
[18]	水利部河湖管理司. 河湖健康评价指南(试行)[S/OL]. [2023-02-20]. http://www.hzyzk.cn/news/newsshow-1593025.html.
[19]	生态环境部. 河湖生态缓冲带保护修复技术指南[S/OL]. [2023-02-20]. https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk06/202112/W020211215541263714758.pdf.
[20]	浙江省市场监督管理局. 海岸线整治修复评估技术规程: DB33/T 2368—2021[S/OL]. [2023-02-20]. https://zjjcmspublic.oss-cn-hangzhou-zwynet-d01-a.internet.cloud.zj.gov.cn/jcms_files/jcms1/web3397/site/attach/-1/2109281613345386687.pdf.
[21]	段丽军. 河岸带生态功能研究综述[J]. 华北国土资源,2015(2):95-96. DUAN L J. Review on ecological function of riparian zone[J]. Huabei Natural Resources,2015(2):95-96.
[22]	韩路, 王海珍, 于军. 河岸带生态学研究进展与展望[J]. 生态环境学报,2013,22(5):879-886. HAN L, WANG H Z, YU J. Research progress and prospects on riparian zone ecology[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences,2013,22(5):879-886.
[23]	夏继红, 周子晔, 汪颖俊, 等. 河长制中的河流岸线规划与管理[J]. 水资源保护,2017,33(5):38-41. XIA J H, ZHOU Z Y, WANG Y J, et al. Planning and management for riparian lines in river chief system[J]. Water Resources Protection,2017,33(5):38-41.
[24]	叶春, 李春华, 邓婷婷. 论湖滨带的结构与生态功能[J]. 环境科学研究,2015,28(2):171-181. YE C, LI C H, DENG T T. Structures and ecological functions of lake littoral zones[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2015,28(2):171-181.
[25]	廖先容, 扈幸伟, 邬龙. 城市河流滨岸缓冲带生态修复模式研究[J]. 水利水电技术,2017,48(10):109-112. LIAO X R, HU X W, WU L. Study on eco-restoration mode for riparian buffer zone of urban river[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering,2017,48(10):109-112.
[26]	REN L, SONG S P, ZHOU Y. Evaluation of river ecological status in the plain river network area in the context of urbanization: a case study of 21 rivers' ecological status in Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Ecological Indicators,2022,142:109172. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109172
[27]	袁鹏, 刘瑞霞, 俞洁, 等. 《浙江省河流生态缓冲带划定与生态修复技术指南(试行)》解读[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2021,11(1):1-5. YUAN P, LIU R X, YU J, et al. Interpretation of Technical Guidelines for Delineation and Ecological Restoration of Riparian Buffers of Rivers in Zhejiang Province (Trial)[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2021,11(1):1-5.
[28]	CHEN J W, YANG T, WANG Y, et al. Effects of ecological restoration on water quality and benthic macroinvertebrates in rural rivers of cold regions: a case study of the Huaide River, Northeast China[J]. Ecological Indicators,2022,142:109169. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109169
[29]	杨青瑞, 陈声威, 何建宽, 等. 支流生境替代保护效果评价指标体系与评价方法研究[J]. 中国水利水电科学研究院学报,2015,13(6):408-413. YANG Q R, CHEN S W, HE J K, et al. Evaluation index system of tributary habitat alternative protective effect[J]. Journal of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research,2015,13(6):408-413.
[30]	ZHANG N N, GAO J W, XU S D, et al. Establishing an evaluation index system of Coastal Port shoreline resources utilization by objective indicators[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management,2022,217:106003.
[31]	修淳, 霍素霞, 王国钢, 等. 一种定量化的山东省自然岸线质量评价方法[J]. 海洋地质前沿,2022,38(7):86-88. XIU C, HUO S X, WANG G G, et al. A quantitative evaluation method of natural coastline quality in Shandong Province[J]. Marine Geology Frontiers,2022,38(7):86-88. ◇