| 生态安全格局叠加生态风险评价的延河流域生态修复分区与策略优化 |
| 摘要点击 290 全文点击 4 投稿时间：2025-08-11 修订日期：2025-11-04 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 生态安全格局 生态风险评价 延河流域 生态修复分区 乡镇级生态修复策略 |
| 英文关键词 ecological security pattern ecological risk assessment Yanhe River Basin ecological restoration zoning township-scale restoration strategy |
| DOI 10.13227/j.hjkx.202508107 |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 生态修复分区是衔接生态保护红线与国土空间规划的关键环节，其核心在于识别区域生态本底特征与胁迫机制，为制定差异化生态修复策略提供科学支撑. 研究综合考虑生态安全格局与风险评价，建立“生态安全格局构建-生态风险评价-综合识别修复分区-修复策略优化”的生态修复分区划定模式. 以延河流域为研究区，采用形态学空间格局分析法（MSPA）和Conefor 2.6软件筛选出生态源地，基于电路理论构建生态安全格局，并叠加生态风险评价，最终划定延河流域生态修复分区. 结果表明，共识别出41个重要生态源地（总面积为1 338.02 km2，占研究区17.41%），主要分布于延河流域上游西部和下游；生态廊道82条，总长度为361.66 km，平均长度为4.41 km；生态夹点3 173个，其面积分布呈显著分异特征，面积小于0.02 km2的夹点数量占比91.57%（2 907个），占夹点总面积的37.88%；累积阻力阈值300是平衡生态连通性与土地利用效率的最优空间尺度，可作为延河流域最优生态廊道宽度；基于生态源地连通性与风险空间分异规律，构建“一心引领、两核支撑、多节点镶嵌、两轴贯通、三带协同、四区管控”的多层次修复网络，实现生态安全格局优化与风险防控的深度融合，科学划分出水土流失防治区、山体滑坡崩塌防治区、综合防治区和生态保育区四大生态修复单元. 该方法将修复单元定位至乡镇行政边界，分区责任衔接乡镇国土空间用途管制，衔接了生态保护红线与城镇开发边界，提出“格局构建-风险评价-修复分区-策略优化”的实施路径，可为促进国土空间高效利用、推动生态修复从被动治理转向主动调控提供科学依据和技术支撑. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Ecological restoration zoning is a key link connecting ecological protection red lines and land spatial planning. Its core lies in identifying the regional ecological baseline characteristics and stress mechanisms， providing scientific support for formulating differentiated ecological restoration strategies. This study comprehensively considers ecological security patterns and risk assessment， establishing a model for defining ecological restoration zones that encompasses “construction of ecological security patterns-ecological risk assessment-comprehensive identification of restoration zoning-optimization of restoration strategies.” Using the Yanhe River Basin as the research area， the morphological spatial pattern analysis （MSPA） method and Conefor 2.6 software were used to identify ecological sources. Based on circuit theory， an ecological security pattern was constructed， and an ecological risk assessment was superimposed， ultimately delineating the ecological restoration zones of the Yanhe River Basin. The results indicated that 41 important ecological sources were identified （total area 1 338.02 km2， accounting for 17.41% of the study area）， primarily distributed in the upper western and downstream sections of the Yanhe River Basin； 82 ecological corridors were identified， with a total length of 361.66 km and an average length of 4.41 km. There were 3 173 ecological pinch points which exhibited significant distribution characteristics， with 91.57% （2 907） of these pinch points having an area less than 0.02 km2， accounting for 37.88% of the total area of pinch points. A cumulative resistance threshold of 300 was determined as the optimal spatial scale to balance ecological connectivity and land use efficiency， which can serve as the optimal width for ecological corridors in the Yanhe River Basin. Based on the connectivity of ecological sources and patterns of spatial risk differentiation， a multi-level restoration network was constructed with “one center leading， two cores supporting， multiple nodes interspersed， two axes connecting， three belts coordinating， and four zones controlling” to achieve a deep integration of ecological security pattern optimization and risk prevention， scientifically delineating four ecological restoration units： soil and water loss prevention zones， landslide and collapse prevention zones， comprehensive prevention zones， and ecological conservation zones. This study locates the repair units within the administrative boundaries of towns and townships， aligns the responsibility zones with the control of land space use in towns， connects the ecological protection red line with urban development boundaries， and proposes an implementation path of “pattern construction-risk assessment-repair zoning-strategy optimization.” This provides a scientific basis and technical support for promoting efficient utilization of land space and for shifting ecological restoration from passive governance to proactive regulation. |
