4.5 Article

Value Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services in the Da Hinggan Mountains, China

期刊

CHINESE GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 302-311

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11769-022-1268-2

关键词

wetlands; ecosystem services value; net primary productivity (NPP); Da Hinggan Mountains; expert weight determination

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U19A2042, U20A2083, 42001112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined regional differences in ecosystem services in the Da Hinggan Mountains (DHM), China. By using a correction index and an equivalent factor table, the study evaluated the ecosystem service value (ESV) of wetlands. The research results are of significance for local government performance evaluation and financial compensation for wetland ecosystem services.
This study examined regional differences in ecosystem services for the Da Hinggan Mountains (DHM), China. A correction index was constructed based on ten-year average net primary productivity (NPP) data. A new equivalent factor table that was suitable for the assessment of wetlands in the DHM was formed by using the expert weight determination method (EWDM). An evaluation model was established for evaluating the ecosystem service value (ESV) of wetlands in the DHM. The results show that in 2020, the total ESV of wetlands reached 93 361 x 10(6) USD, with the forest swamp and marsh ecosystems contributing the most. From the perspective of value composition, regulating services and supporting services are the main service functions of wetlands in the DHM. From 2010 to 2020, ESV provided by wetlands increased by 4337 x 10(6) USD/yr in the DHM. The value of forest swamp and peatland ecosystems increased by 18.6% and 12.7%, respectively, whereas the value of swamp, shrub swamp, and marsh decreased. The research results are of significance for contributing to local government performance evaluation and determining financial compensation for the provision of wetland ecosystem services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据