基于PSR模型的蒙古国色楞格河流域生态安全评估

doi:10.19788/j.issn.2096-6369.230117

农业大数据学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (1): 87-94.doi: 10.19788/j.issn.2096-6369.230117

基于PSR模型的蒙古国色楞格河流域生态安全评估

周佳玲^1,²(), 王卷乐^2,^3,^*()

1.江苏海洋大学海洋技术与测绘学院，江苏连云港 222005
2.中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室，北京 100101
3.江苏省地理信息资源开发与利用协同创新中心江苏南京 210023

收稿日期:2023-03-03 出版日期:2023-03-26 发布日期:2023-05-16
通讯作者: 王卷乐，男，研究员，研究方向：地球大数据管理与资源环境遥感应用；E-mail: wangjl@igsnr-r.ac.cn。
作者简介:周佳玲，女，研究生，研究方向：地球空间环境信息采集与处理；Email:zhoujl@lreis.ac.cn。
基金资助:
科技基础资源调查专项项目(2022FY101902);中国工程科技知识中心建设项目(CKCEST-2022-1-41);灾害风险综合研究计划项目(07M79810AM)

Ecological Security Assessment of Selenge River Basin in Mongolia Based on PSR Model

Zhou Jialing^1,²(), Wang Juanle^2,^3,^*()

1. School of Marine Technology and Geomatics, Jiangsu Ocean University, Lianyungang, Jiangsu 222005, China
2. State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
3. Jiangsu Center for Collaborative Innovation in Geographical Information Resource Development and Application, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China

Received:2023-03-03 Online:2023-03-26 Published:2023-05-16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

蒙古国色楞格河是世界最大的淡水湖——贝加尔湖最重要的入湖河流，该流域的生态安全事关蒙古高原和中国北方生态屏障建设。为了明晰色楞格河流域的生态安全状态，本文提出基于压力-状态-响应（Pressure-State-Response，简称PSR）模型的评估方法和技术流程，以期通过评估应用为本区域可持续生态环境管理提供参考。首先对色楞格河流域土地覆盖进行分类，结合蒙古国官方统计数据，分析色楞格河流域生态环境现状。进而基于PSR模型，采用层次分析法，对色楞格河流域生态安全现状进行评估。结果表明：色楞格河流域内典型草地所占的面积最大约为16万km²，占总面积的53%，其次为森林，面积约为10km²，占总面积的32%，植被覆盖度较高。流域内生态环境响应以及生态环境状态都处于较安全等级，其中耕地面积及农业机械化水平对生态环境状态和生态环境响应的影响较大。但同时，存在着较大的生态环境压力，土地退化面积及牲畜存栏量是造成生态环境压力较大的主要影响因子，未来应加强这两方面的政策调控。总体而言，蒙古国色楞格河流域的生态安全处于较安全等级，可适度进行开发利用。

关键词: 色楞格河流域, PSR模型, 层次分析法, 生态安全评估, 蒙古国

Abstract:

The Selenge River in Mongolia is the world's largest freshwater lake—Lake Baikal, the most important inlet river, and the ecological security of the basin is a matter of concern for the construction of the ecological barrier on the Mongolian Plateau and in northern China. In order to clarify the ecological safety status of the Selenge River basin, this paper proposes an assessment method and technical process based on the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model, with a view to providing a reference for sustainable ecological management in the region through assessment applications. Firstly, we classify the land cover of Selenge River Basin and analyze the ecological status of Selenge River Basin with the official statistics of Mongolia. Further, based on the PSR model, a hierarchical analysis was used to assess the ecological safety status of the Selenge River basin. The results show that the real steppe within the Selenge River basin occupies the largest area of about 160,000 km², accounting for 53% of the total area, followed by the forest with an area of about 10 km², accounting for 32% of the total area, with a high vegetation cover. The ecological response and ecological state in the watershed are at a safer level, where the arable land area and the level of agricultural mechanization have a greater impact on the ecological state and ecological response. However, at the same time, there is a greater ecological pressure, and the area of land degradation and the stock of livestock are the main influencing factors that cause greater ecological pressure. In the future, policy regulation in these two aspects should be strengthened. In general, the ecological safety of the Selenge River Basin in Mongolia is at a relatively safe level and can be exploited moderately.

Key words: Selenge River Basin, PSR model, AHP, ecological security assessment, Mongolia

周佳玲, 王卷乐. 基于PSR模型的蒙古国色楞格河流域生态安全评估[J]. 农业大数据学报, 2023, 5(1): 87-94.

Zhou Jialing, Wang Juanle. Ecological Security Assessment of Selenge River Basin in Mongolia Based on PSR Model[J]. Journal of Agricultural Big Data, 2023, 5(1): 87-94.

图/表 8

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 18

[1]	应凌霄, 孔令桥, 肖燚, 等. 生态安全及其评价方法研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(05): 1679-1692.
	Ying L X, Kong L Q, Xiao Y, et al. The research progress and prospect of ecological security and its assessing approaches[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(5): 1679-1692.
[2]	R Chalov S, Jarsjö J, Kasimov N S, et al. Spatio-temporal variation of sediment transport in the Selenga River Basin, Mongolia and Russia[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2015, 73: 663-680. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3106-z
[3]	肖笃宁, 陈文波, 郭福良. 论生态安全的基本概念和研究内容[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002(3): 354-358.
	Xiao D N, Chen W B, Guo F L. On the basic concepts and contents of ecological security[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002(3): 354-358.
[4]	Rogers K S. Ecological security and multinational corporations[J]. Environmental Change and Security Project Report, 1997, 3: 29-36.
[5]	Gari S R, Newton A, Icely J D. A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2015, 103: 63-77.
[6]	刘慧丽, 查东平, 冯明雷, 等. 基于PSFR模型的江西省东江流域生态安全评估研究[J]. 人民珠江, 2021, 42(7): 25-33.
	Liu H L, Zha D P, Feng M L, et al. Study on ecological security assessment of Dongjiang River Basin in Jiangxi Provice based on PSFR model[J]. Pearl River, 2021, 42(7): 25-33.
[7]	魏伟, 雷莉, 周俊菊, 等. 基于GIS和PSR模型的石羊河流域生态安全评估[J]. 土壤通报, 2015, 46(4): 789-795.
	Wei W, Lei L, Zhou J J, et al. Evaluation of the ecological security in Shiyang River Basin based on Grid GIS and PSR model[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2015, 46(4): 789-795.
[8]	Mosaffaie J, Jam A S, Tabatabaei M R, et al. Trend assessment of the watershed health based on DPSIR framework[J]. Land Use Policy, 2021, 100: 104911. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104911
[9]	魏竞超, 李自涵, 董媛媛. 基于压力-状态-响应(PSR)模型的黄河流域环境安全评价体系法治化研究[J]. 中国环境监测, 2023, 39(1): 19-28.
	Wei J C, Li Z H, Dong Y Y. Legalization of environmental safety assessment system in the Yellow River Basin based on Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 2023, 39(1): 19-28.
[10]	Liu J, Cao X, Zhao L, et al. Spatiotemporal differentiation of land ecological security and its influencing factors: A case study in Jinan, Shandong Province, China[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022: 8.
[11]	Zhang Y, Zang P, Guo H, et al. Wetlands ecological security assessment in lower reaches of Taoerhe river connected with Nenjiang river using modified PSR model[J]. HydroResearch, 2023, 6: 156-165. doi: 10.1016/j.hydres.2022.12.003
[12]	王燕辉, 陈卓, 曹禺, 等. 河北省近20年耕地生态安全动态变化及阻力分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(1): 194-199+206.
	Wang Y H, Chen Z, Cao Y, et al. Analysis on the dynamic change and resistance of cultivated land ecological security in the past 20 years in Hebei Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 24(1): 194-199+206.
[13]	Dalantai S, Sumiya E, Bao Y, et al. Spatial-temporal changes of land degradation caused by natural and human induced factors: Case study of Bulgan Province in central Mongolia[J]. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 2021.DOI:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B4-2021-79-2021 doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B4-2021-79-2021
[14]	徐浩冉. 福清市土地利用变化与土地生态安全评价研究[D]. 江苏海洋大学, 2022.
	Xu H R. Study on Land Use Change and Land Ecological Security in Fuqing City[D]. Jiangsu Ocean University, 2022.
[15]	王雪. 基于DPSIR模型的黄河流域榆中段生态安全评估研究[D]. 兰州大学, 2021.
	Wang X. Research on Ecological Security Assessment of the Yellow River Basin in the Yuzhong Region Based on DPSIR Model[D]. Lanzhou University, 2021.
[16]	何晔宇, 匡耀求. 基于驱动力-压力-状态-影响-响应模型的粤港澳大湾区惠州海岸带生态安全评价分析[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2020, 42(3): 362-368.
	He Y Y, Kuang Y Q. Evaluation and analysis of ecological security of coastal zone in Huizhou of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area based on DPSIR model[J]. Environmental Pollution and Control, 2020, 42(3): 362-368.
[17]	Bahraminejad M, Rayegani B, Nezami B, et al. Presenting an early warning system to supply the protected areas with ecological security (Case study: Darmiyan Protected Area, East of Iran)[J]. Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards, 2018, 7(2): 75-94.
[18]	Deshmukh M, Nanaware D, Kumbhar A. Performance of Western Maharashtra in Sustainable Livelihood Security Index[J]. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 2021, 9(1): 1-9.

准则层	权重	指标层	权重	综合权重
压力	0.4440	人口密度	0.1247	0.0554
		人口自然增长率	0.1080	0.0480
		森林砍伐量	0.1087	0.0483
		地表水干涸量	0.1529	0.0679
		土地退化面积	0.2213	0.0983
		牲畜存栏量	0.1811	0.0804
		耕地农药使用量	0.1033	0.0459
状态	0.2760	耕地面积	0.1222	0.0337
		森林覆盖率	0.1604	0.0443
		地表水源数量	0.1413	0.0390
		不透水面面积	0.0802	0.0221
		年降水量	0.1795	0.0495
		草地覆盖率	0.1871	0.0516
		尘埃天数	0.1292	0.0357
响应	0.2800	地表水保护量	0.1674	0.0469
		人均GDP	0.1515	0.0424
		第三产业比重	0.1116	0.0312
		土地保护与恢复资本投资	0.1794	0.0502
		环境保护基金	0.1628	0.0456
		生态税额	0.1435	0.0402
		农业机械化水平	0.0837	0.0234

生态安全等级	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
生态安全指数	[0,0.2]	(0.2,0.4]	(0.4,0.6]	(0.6,0.8]	(0.8,1]
表征状态	极不安全	欠安全	临界安全	较安全	安全

安全度	生态环境压力	生态环境状态	生态环境响应	综合
ESI数值	0.48	0.75	0.69	0.66
安全等级	临界安全	较安全	较安全	较安全

准则层	指标层	障碍度(%)
压力	人口密度	4.38
	人口自然增长率	0.83
	森林砍伐量	0.96
	地表水干涸量	12.43
	土地退化面积	42.79
	牲畜存栏量	35.02
	耕地农药使用量	3.59
状态	耕地面积	30.05
	森林覆盖率	16.24
	地表水源数量	24.53
	不透水面面积	0.00
	年降水量	5.19
	草地覆盖率	0.00
	尘埃天数	23.98
响应	地表水保护量	6.75
	人均GDP	14.26
	第三产业比重	25.51
	土地保护与恢复资本投资	0.00
	环境保护基金	9.12
	生态税额	17.36
	农业机械化水平	27.01

基于PSR模型的蒙古国色楞格河流域生态安全评估

Ecological Security Assessment of Selenge River Basin in Mongolia Based on PSR Model

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 18

相关文章 0

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0