【作者】 王四海；

【导师】 杨宇明；

【作者基本信息】 中国林业科学研究院 ， 野生动植物保护与利用， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 战略环境影响评价(Strategic Environmental Assessment, SEA)能从战略层面上及早协调和提供环境与发展关系的决策依据,可使开发活动的替代方案、积累影响、地区性或全球性影响以及非工程影响在早期的规划或计划阶段得到充分的考虑。生物多样性是自然环境的重要组成部分,同样SEA也是促进生物多样性保护和可持续利用的重要工具。但目前在SEA中对生物多样性影响评价还存在着许多不足,评价的技术和方法还很不完善,在选择替代方案、判别战略层次影响重要程度的标准、预测方法、不确定性处理等方面都存在许多缺陷。随着自然旅游的快速发展,旅游对生物多样性的的威胁越来越严重,为了促进旅游规划开发与生物多样性保护的和谐,以及推进我国规划环评中生物多样性影响评价工作技术和方法体系的完善,本论文从旅游规划层面探讨生物多样性影响评价指标体系和方法。通过大量文献回顾分析了旅游规划对生物多样性的影响特点,同时根据专家咨询和生物多样性评价内容要求,建立评价指标体系。在分析人类对景观、生态系统、物种三个生物多样性层次的影响规律的基础上,通过定性与定量相结合的方法,建立了针对指标的影响评价方法。最后通过案例验证评价指标体系和方法的适用性。研究主要取得以下结论:1、生物多样性影响评价内容通常应包括景观、生态系统和物种在内的三个层次的影响评价。根据旅游对生物多样性影响特点和专家咨询,在生物多样性的三个层次建立了影响评价指标体系。景观多样性层次设立2个主要影响评价指标,即景观类型及面积变化和景观结构变化;生态系统多样性层次设立2个主要影响评价指标,即生态系统类型及面积变化和生态系统特性变化;物种多样性层次设立3个影响评价指标,即影响物种种类、物种影响范围和物种影响强度。2、人类引起区域生物多样性下降的一般规律为人类对生物多样性影响强度越大,生物多样性承载能力的下降幅度越大。通过人为设置生物多样性承载能力下降幅度,来确定影响强度。生物多样性的承载能力根据不同的保护价值预先分为不同的级别,分级单元以生态系统为基础,根据生态系统的各种特性(如,稀有性、脆弱性、典型性、生态服务功能等)确定其保护价值,并赋予不同的值。最具有保护价值的生态系统赋值为1,其它生态系统的价值是相对于最高价值的重要性程度而确定,因此其值都小于1。景观的分类标准是根据区域的保护价值进行分类,具有相同保护价值的区域属于同一景观类型。3、景观多样性承载能力是景观面积与其价值的乘积。用旅游规划实施影响后的景观多样性承载能力的损失量与旅游规划前的景观多样性承载能力的比值来衡量景观类型与面积的影响程度。景观结构的影响程度采用常用的岛屿生物地理学理论进行判断。4、生态系统多样性承载能力是生态系统面积与其价值的乘积。生态系统的影响程度用旅游规划实施影响后的生态系统多样性承载能力的损失量与旅游规划前的生态系统多样性承载能力的比值来衡量。5、物种影响评价首先根据生物多样性保护目标的要求,确定重点评价对象。一物种的影响程度由被影响的种群数量和影响强度两方面决定。物种的影响数量通过影响的分布区面积进行估算,物种的影响强度根据被影响物种的生活力和繁殖力的变化确定。一规划方案对所有物种的影响程度用所有被影响物种价值与影响程度积的和表示,以便比选不同方案对所有物种的影响。物种的价值根据物种的科研价值、经济价值和文化价值确定。6.根据建立的评价指标体系和方法,对西双版纳国家级自然保护区旅游规划和普达措国家公园旅游规划的生物多样性影响进行评价分析,结果表明,评价结果能反映旅游规划对生物多样性的影响趋势,评价方法的使用具有较好的灵活性,能适应不同的旅游规划内容和生物多样性背景需求。更多还原

【Abstract】 The ultimate aim of Strategic Environmental Assessement (SEA) is to help protect the environment and promote sustainable development. SEA promotes sustainability via integration considerations of cumulative, indirect, synergistic environmental effects into strategic decision-making. Biodiversity is an important part of natural environment. As an environmental protection tool, SEA could promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. But Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) in SEA is still far from meeting its goals and is unsuccessful in identifying significance of impact, uncertainty and alternative selection. In order to promote the practice of BIA in SEA, this dissertation discussed establishment of indicator system and methodology of tourism plan impact on biodiversity.According to the requirements of BIA and tourism impact attributes on biodiversity, indicator system was established for landscape, ecosystem and species level of biodiversity by expert consultation. Based on the analysis of human impact characteristics on biodiversity, impact assessment methodologies were developed qualitatively and quantificationally. The feasibility of indicator system and methodologies were tested by two tourism plan cases.The following were the main results:1. Indacator system was established for landscape, ecosystem and species level of biodiversity. There were two impact assessment indicators for landscape (area changes of landscape type and changes of landscape structure), two for ecosystem (area changes of ecosystem type and changes of ecosystem attribute), and three for species (objectives, affected population size and impact intensity). The indicator system was created to fit the requirements of SEA and reflect tourism impact trend on biodiversity.2. Human impact on biodiversity led to biodiversity loss in targeted area, i.e. biodiversity carrying capacity (BCC) of the area declined. Decline extent of BCC is relevant to human impact intensity and both of them are successive. The successive changes of BCC could be graded artificially according to degrees. In other words, due to human impact on biodiversity, BCC in targeted area declined from upper to lower gradient. According to this law, ecosystem was given score by conservation value. The most ideal ecosystem score was one, and the scores of other ecosystem were all less than one since they were evaluated by their significance in contrast to the most ideal ecosystem. Classifacation of landscape type was based on ecosystem value, and the same landscape type was the collection of ecosystem of the same value. In a given task, the number of ecosystem value gradients equaled to the number of landscape types.3. Establishment of impact assessment methodology of landscape and ecosystem was based on the above hypothesis. BCC of landscape was the product of landscape area and value scoring. The loss of BCC of landscape could evaluate impact significance of landscape, and so was ecosystem impact assessment. Due to integrated considerations of ecosystem frangibility, representativeness and endemicity in value scoring, attribute indicator assessment of ecosystem was reflected in the process of ecosystem impact assessement, while impact assessment of landscape structure mainly conformed to the law of island biogeography.4. In practice, it was impossible to obtain the detailed information of all species in a targeted area of BIA, so the species-level impact assessment should be addressed through the studies on the key objectives like the species which were protected and closed related to people or species of economic and cultural values, etc. Significance of species impact was decided by affecting population size and impact intensity. Population size was estimated by distribution area. Impact intensity of species was classified into four ranks according to the changes of viability and propagation ability of affected species.5. The indicator system and methodology were practised in Xishuangbanna national natural reserve tourism plan and Pudaso national park tourism plan. The results of the cases could reflect the impact trend on biodiversity. The methodologies were flexible and could adapt to different contents of tourism plan and biodiversity baselines.更多还原