欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是

生态学杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 1125-1133.doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202604.002

• ·城市生态系统保护与高质量发展专栏· • 上一篇    下一篇

基于“区域-单元-场地”的生态保护修复成效多尺度评估: 以江门市为例

吴奕萱,何淑仪,王景诗,龚蔚霞*   

  1. (广东省科学院广州地理研究所, 广州 510070)

  • 出版日期:2026-04-10 发布日期:2026-04-10

Multi-scale evaluation of the effectiveness of ecological protection and restoration based on “region-unit-site”: A case study of Jiangmen City.

WU Yixuan, HE Shuyi, WANG Jingshi, GONG Weixia*   

  1. (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510070, China).
  • Online:2026-04-10 Published:2026-04-10

摘要: 生态保护修复成效评估对优化调整保护修复管理工作、实现可持续效益具有重要意义。本文构建了“区域-单元-场地”多尺度评估框架及其评价指标体系,区域尺度关注生态系统结构与格局变化,单元尺度关注生态干扰变化和绩效目标完成情况,场地尺度关注生态系统质量与服务变化,并利用该框架定量评估了广东省江门市2013—2018年(阶段1)、2018—2023年(阶段2)两个阶段的生态保护修复综合成效。结果表明:在区域尺度,两个阶段生态用地面积减少均超过4%,连通性指数降低均超过10%,生态系统结构与格局成效不足;在单元尺度,虽然生态问题得到部分改善,但两个阶段土壤保持、水质提升、海岸防护3个修复单元的开发干扰强度均未得到有效控制;在场地尺度,两个阶段大部分地区生态系统质量有所提升,而生态系统服务成效优良面积占比均低于25%,潭江中下游和西江沿岸地区生态系统服务降低明显。总体而言,阶段1至阶段2,大部分地区综合成效有所提升,优秀级别占比由2.27%升至12.83%,主要分布在中南部和北部地区,较差级别占比由52.17%降至26.57%,主要分布在海岸带、潭江和西江中下游地区及西部山地。未来江门市应重点关注生态用地的规模及格局变化,提升海岸带及潭江、西江沿岸地区的生态系统服务。“区域-单元-场地”评估框架能够直观反映江门市生态保护修复成效及其存在问题,具有一定的推广应用价值。


关键词: 生态保护修复, 多尺度研究, 成效评估, 生态系统服务, 江门市

Abstract: Evaluating the effectiveness of ecological protection and restoration is essential for optimizing management strategies and achieving sustainable outcomes. We developed a multiscale assessment framework of “regionunit-site” with corresponding indicators. The assessment at the region scale focuses on the changes in ecosystem structure and patterns, that at the unit scale pays attention to the changes in ecological disturbance and the completion of performance goals, and that at the site scale focuses on the changes in ecosystem quality and services. Following this framework, we quantitatively evaluated the comprehensive effectiveness of ecological protection and restoration in Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province during 2013-2018 (phase 1) and 2018-2023 (phase 2). The results showed that both phases exhibited ecological land loss (>4%) and connectivity index reduction (>10%) at the region scale, indicating the deterioration of ecosystem structure and pattern. At the unit scale, although some improvement had been achieved in solving ecological problems, the development  intensities of the three restoration units-soil conservation, water quality improvement, and coastal protection-had not been effectively controlled in both stages. At the site scale, while most areas showed enhanced ecosystem quality in both phases, the proportion of areas with excellent and good performance of ecosystem services was less than 25%. There were notable degradation of ecosystem services in the middle and lower reaches of the Tanjiang River and along the coast of the Xijiang River. In general, most areas had experienced significant improvement in ecological protection and restoration effectiveness from phase 1 to 2. The proportion of excellent-effectiveness regions increased from 2.27% to 12.83%, mainly distributed in central-south and northern regions. The proportion of low-effectiveness regions decreased from 52.17% to 26.57%, primarily in coastal zone, the middle and lower reaches of the Tanjiang river and the Xijiang river, and western mountains. These findings underscore the necessity to prioritize ecological land conservation and enhance coastal/riverine ecosystem services in Jiangmen. The proposed multi-scale assessment framework effectively identifies spatial heterogeneity in ecological protection and restoration outcomes as well as the problems, demonstrating the potential for broader application in ecosystem management.


Key words: ecological protection and restoration, multi-scale study, effectiveness evaluation, ecosystem services, Jiangmen City