Examining the Influence of Positionality in Evaluating Collaborative Progress in Natural Resource Management: Reflections of an Academic and a Practitioner

In this paper, we present a reflexive examination of how and why we, an academic and a practitioner, arrive at different evaluations of collaborative progress in natural resource management. We situate this examination in our long-standing involvement in designing, adaptively managing, and participating in the Uncompahgre Plateau collaborative forest restoration project in western Colorado, USA. Drawing on the concept of “positionality” in qualitative social science research, we disclose our respective motivations, assumptions, roles, and power relative to the collaborative process. The differences in evaluating collaborative progress stem from our respective professional positionality. For the academic, the guiding interest was to test theory and promote success for his applied research institute; for the practitioner, the motivation was to build trust to allow her field staff the flexibility to implement management actions and demonstrate effectiveness as an agency line officer. These epistemological differences draw attention to the importance of transdisciplinary approaches to producing knowledge from shared practice, starting with efforts to explicitly disclose and honor differing interests, assumptions, and frames of reference stemming from each party’s personal and professional biographies and institutional norms. This reflexivity is essential to advancing knowledge about collaboration in natural resource management.     

The Influence of Place on the Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services

Sense of place, including an individual’s attitudes toward specific geographic settings, is generally predicted to influence willingness to engage in place-protective behaviors. Relatively little research, however, has empirically examined the influence of people’s attitudes toward a place on their willingness to pay for environmental protection. Using the example of a payment for ecosystem services (PES) initiative in the McKenzie River watershed, Oregon, USA, we found that place attitudes were a significant predictor of respondents’ willingness to pay for a program designed to benefit drinking water quality. These results suggest that connecting conservation actions to landscapes that are meaningful to people may increase their financial support for PES and other conservation programs. While program managers have little or no influence over stakeholders’ political ideology, gender, or income, managers may be able to influence prospective PES buyers’ awareness and attitudes through targeted communications, thereby potentially increasing support for place-based conservation efforts.     

土地利用生态服务价值与经济发展的协调及空间分异——以西洞庭湖区为例

土地利用生态服务价值体现了土地通过集约利用与空间优化所发挥生态效益的大小,可在一定程度上反映土地利用与与经济发展的协调关系。以西洞庭湖区为研究对象,在ArcGIS软件支持下,通过评价与分析生态服务价值变化,分析生态经济协调发展水平及其空间差异,探讨土地利用生态服务价值与区域经济发展的互动响应与耦合协调关系。研究表明：① 2000年以来西洞庭湖区土地利用生态服务价值呈下降趋势,2000年西洞庭湖区生态服务价值为1292.13×10⁶元·a^-1,2011年为953.03×10⁶元·a^-1,损失339.10×10⁶元。② 从整个研究区来看,整个研究阶段处于低度冲突的县有6个,分别为常德市辖区、安乡县、汉寿县、澧县、临澧县、津市市,只有桃源县处于潜在危机状态。从数量上看,整个区域内大多为冲突状态,区域在经济发展中存在的潜在危机较大。③ 从空间分异来看,2008年与2011年土地利用生态经济协调度基本上为低度冲突状态,需采取生态服务供给恢复与重建措施,控制生态服务消费需求的过快增长。整个区域只有桃源县与汉寿县由不协调转换为协调状态,主要原因是森林覆盖率相对较高,林地类型面积大,水土保持与水源涵养生态服务功能较强,提高了生态服务价值。     

基于改进当量的甘肃省耕地生态系统服务价值及其与区域经济发展的空间关系研究

为量化分析耕地生态系统服务价值及其与区域经济发展的空间关系,采用改进的耕地当量因子,对甘肃省2014年耕地生态系统服务价值进行定量化研究,并采用双变量空间自相关探讨其与区域经济发展在空间上的关联关系。结果表明：（1）在GPP修正的基础上估算得到的甘肃省2014年耕地生态系统服务价值为4.96×10¹¹元,其中水资源供给功能的价值为负,食物生产功能的生态系统服务价值相对较高,美学景观功能的生态系统服务价值最低。（2）双变量空间自相关显示人均国内生产总值与耕地生态系统服务价值在空间上存在显著的负相关关系,Moran’s I指数为-0.252 3。局部双变量空间自相关LISA图也显示低-高聚集区主要分布在经济发展相对落后、具有明显生态优势的东南部地区;而高-低聚集区则主要分布在经济高速发展,生态环境相对恶劣的西北部地区。研究结果可为甘肃省生态环境管护与区域经济发展提供决策参考,为实现经济增长与生态保护统筹协调发展提供参考依据。     

生态保护红线成效评估框架与指标方法

生态保护红线是在自然保护区、重点生态功能区、风景名胜区、森林公园等诸多区域生态管理制度不断实践基础上,面对中国国土开发和生态保护的复杂关系,继承和创新提出的一种新型区域生态管控制度,已经成为推动国家生态文明建设的重大战略。如何科学评估生态保护红线保护成效,服务于生态保护红线综合管理和保障区域生态安全,成为普遍关注的热点问题之一。针对已有的区域生态保护成效评估案例的不足,基于划定生态保护红线是为保障国家和区域生态安全的基本认知,围绕着生态保护红线“生态功能不降低、面积不减少、性质不改变”的管控目标,以生态保护红线对区域生态系统保护作用为主要出发点,提出生态保护成效评估框架和指标方法。生态保护成效评估以生态系统类型构成和生态系统服务功能为内容主线,通过多维度时空尺度拓展,耦合分析生态保护红线内外、实施前后的生态状况变化,综合评估生态保护红线对保障区域生态安全的贡献和改善区域生态状况的作用。进而,可以关联分析可能引起生态保护红线生态状况变化的管控政策、制度和其他间接驱动因素,评估政策实施成效评估。实证上选择海南省生态保护红线和广东省严格控制区为案例进行了讨论。     

基于共生理论的中国沿海省市海洋经济生态协调模式研究

建立海洋生态与海洋经济的共生演化Logistic模型,通过压力-状态-影响-响应（PSIR）模型对Logistic模型中的基本指数进行求解,进一步计算海洋生态与海洋经济之间的共生系数,结果表明：天津和上海两市发展模式已摆脱资源索取模式,其海洋经济生态共生模式的探讨意义较小;其余沿海九省中,河北、江苏、广西和海南4省处于反向共生水平,辽宁和山东两省呈现并生模式,浙江和广东呈现出生态受益的偏利共生模式,福建则呈现出经济受害的偏利共生模式。根据沿海各省市海洋经济生态共生模式,提出相关的政策建议,以期对沿海省市今后的经济和生态发展模式提供理论依据。     

基于贝叶斯网络的水源涵养服务空间格局优化

以渭河流域关中—天水经济区段（简称“渭河流域关天段”）为研究区,基于贝叶斯网络和水量平衡原理建立了水源涵养服务网络模型;将CA-Marcov模型与贝叶斯网络模型相结合,预测了2050年不同土地利用情景及其水源涵养服务分布概率;提出了关键变量关键状态子集方法,对研究区水源涵养服务空间格局进行优化。结果表明：① 保护情景下,林地面积增长了18.12%,其主要来源为耕地;草地和城市面积增长缓慢,分别增加了0.73%和0.38%;水体和未利用地分别减少了5.08%和0.92%,该情景下的水源涵养量值偏高的概率在3种情景中最大,保护情景的设计对未来的土地利用政策制定具有一定参考价值。② 水源涵养服务的关键影响因子是降水、蒸散发和土地利用,水源涵养量最高状态对应的关键变量关键状态子集是：﹛降水= 1,蒸散发= 2,土地利用= 2﹜,该子集主要分布在年平均降雨量和蒸散发量较大,植被覆盖率高的地区。③ 研究区适宜优化水源涵养的区域主要分布在天水市麦积区南部、宝鸡市陇县西南部和渭滨区南部、咸阳市旬邑县东北部和永寿县西北部,以及铜川市耀州区西部。结合贝叶斯网络模型研究水源涵养服务的优化区域,不仅有助于提升对生态系统水源涵养服务过程的直观认识,而且增加了情景设计和格局优化的合理性。在此基础上提出的关键状态关键因子方法,对研究区水源涵养生态环境建设和政策制定都具有重要的意义。     

A comparison of results from geomorphological diversity evaluation methods in the Polish Lowland (Toruń Basin and Chełmno Lakeland)

Geomorphological diversity is part of geodiversity. Study and evaluation of geodiversity, including geomorphological diversity, is often conducted in uplands and mountains, despite the fact that lowland areas are of equal importance. This paper evaluates geomorphological diversity in a small area of the Polish Lowland, using a variety of methods that have been applied in recent times for evaluating geodiversity, and presents the results on maps. By comparing these maps and analyzing the correlation coefficients of the results obtained, it was possible to identify the two methods that were best suited to indicating areas with the greatest geomorphological diversity in the lowlands. These two methods are least affected by the choice of elementary fields and data classification methods applied. The study identified the two areas with the greatest relief diversity and showed that they distinctly differ from one another. They demonstrate the major influence of processes, not only on the topographic parameters and landform types, but above all on identifying and defining total geomorphological diversity. These methods, which can be used to identify the areas with the greatest total geomorphological diversity, could readily be used in applied studies relating to abiotic ecosystem services and landscape management.     

Regional differentiation of ecological conservation and its zonal suitability at the county level in China

China’s investments, financial incentives and deductions in terms of ecological conservation are based at the county level. Therefore, the monitoring and assessment of the effects of ecological conservation at the county level is important to provide a scientific basis for the assessment of the ecological and environmental quality at the county scale. This paper quantitatively estimated the dynamics of high-quality ecosystems and vegetation coverage over the past 15 years, and their relationships with the number of ecological conservation programs at the county level were analyzed. Then, the effects of ecological conservation measures on ecological changes at the county level and their regional suitability were assessed and discussed. The results showed that counties with a percentage of high-quality ecosystems greater than 50% were primarily distributed in northeastern China, southern subtropical China and the southeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and those with a percentage lower than 20% were mostly distributed in northwestern China, the southwestern karst region and the North China Plain. In recent decades, ecological conservation has focused on ecologically fragile regions; more than five ecological conservation programs have been implemented in most counties of the Three River Source Region in Qinghai Province, southeastern Tibet, western Sichuan, the Qilian Mountains, southern Xinjiang and other western regions, while only one or zero have been implemented in the eastern coastal area of China. Over the past 15 years, the proportional area of high-quality ecosystems has increased in approximately 53% of counties. The vegetation coverage of counties in the Loess Plateau, Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (Jing-Jin-Ji), Sichuan-Guizhou-Chongqing, and Guangdong-Guangxi provincial-level areas has increased significantly. However, it decreased in northern Xinjiang, central Tibet, central and eastern Inner Mongolia, the Yangtze River Delta and other regions. The relationships between the numbers of ecological conservation programs and the indicators of ecosystem restoration response, such as high-quality ecosystem and vegetation coverage, do not show positive correlations. These results suggest that ecological conservation programs should be planned and implemented according to the distribution patterns of high-quality ecosystems and that restoration measures such as afforestation should follow natural principles and regional differentiation under the background of climate change.     

Ecosystem Carbon Allocation of a Temperate Mixed Forest and a Subtropical Evergreen Forest in China

Ecosystem carbon allocation can indicate ecosystem carbon cycling visually through its quantification within different carbon pools and carbon exchange. Using the ecological inventory and eddy covariance measurement applied to both a mature temperate mixed forest in Changbai Mountain (CBM) and a mature subtropical evergreen forest in Dinghu Mountain (DHM), we partitioned the ecosystem carbon pool and carbon exchange into different components, determined the allocation and analyzed relationships within those components. Generally, the total carbon stock of CBM was slightly higher than that of DHM due to a higher carbon stock in the arbor layer at CBM. It was interesting that the proportions of carbon stock in vegetation, soil and litter were similar for the two mature forests. The ratio of vegetation carbon pool to soil carbon stock was 1.5 at CBM and 1.3 at DHM. However, more carbon was allocated to the trunk and root from the vegetation carbon pool at CBM, while more carbon was allocated to foliage and branches at DHM. Moreover, 77% of soil carbon storage was limited to the surface soil layer (0-20 cm), while there was still plentiful carbon stored in the deeper soil layers at DHM. The root/shoot ratios were 0.30 and 0.25 for CBM and DHM, respectively. The rates of net ecosystem productivity (NPP) to gross ecosystem productivity (GPP) were 0.76 and 0.58, and the ratios of ecosystem respiration (Re) to GPP were 0.98 and 0.87 for CBM and DHM, respectively. The net ecosystem carbon exchange/productivity (NEP) was 0.24 t C ha^-1 yr^-1 for CBM and 3.38 t C ha^-1 yr^-1 for DHM. Due to the common seasonal and inter-annual variations of ecosystem carbon exchange resulting from the influence of environmental factors, it was necessary to use the long record dataset to evaluate the ecosystem sink capacity.