论文检索
    当前位置: 首页>>论文检索>>论文检索>>正文
    基于多评准决策的都市公园生态系统服务评估-以台中市公园为例
    2019-08-21  点击:[]

     


    基于多评准决策的都市公园生态系统服务评估-以台中市公园为例

    Urban Park Eco-system Services Evaluation based on Multiple Criteria Decision Making—The Case Study of Parks in Taichung

     

    蔡承祐、蔡淑美、谢宗恒

    CAI Chengyou, CAI Shumei, XIE Zongheng

     

    蔡承祐 / 1991年生 / / 逢甲大学建设学院土木水利工程与建设规划 /博士研究生 / 研究方向为:景观生态、都市景观、地理信息系统

    CAI Chengyou, male, was born in 1991. He is a doctoral Candidate in Civil and Hydraulic Engineering and Construction Planning, College of Construction and Development, Feng Chia University. Research direction: landscape ecology, urban landscape, geographic information system.

     

    蔡淑美 / 1962年生 / / 蔡淑美景观研究室 / 主持人 / 研究方向为: 景观规划设计、乡村景观、景观生态、台湾传统园林

    CAI Shumei, female, was born in 1962. She is a hostess in Landscape Research Office. Research direction: landscape planning and design, rural landscape, landscape ecology, Taiwan traditional gardens

     

    谢宗恒 / 1978年生 / / 辅仁大学景观设计学系 / 副教授 / 研究方向为:健康与疗愈景观、都市农业与小区菜园、公园绿地系统规划

    XIE Zongheng, male, was born in 1978. He is an associate professor in Department of Landscape Design, Fu Jen University. Research direction: health and healing landscape, urban agriculture and community garden, planning of park green space system

     


    摘要:近年来,生态系统服务的研究广受重视,都市规划者与居民也开始重视都市生态系统中所能发挥作用并做出贡献的服务功能,公园绿地作为都市环境组成的重要土地利用模式之一,是众多学者表明可以提供多样生态系统服务功能的重要场所。本研究通过多评准决策的模式,针对都市公园生态系统服务的评估方式进行探讨,通过偏好序列结构法进行排序,初步探讨现有不同尺度与类型都市公园的生态系统服务功能评值。分析结果显示,面积较大与树林所占面积较大的都市公园在生态系统服务上的提供相对起其他公园要更丰富,而不同专业领域的学者对于评估指标权重的看法亦有所差异。本研究初步探究出一个适合都市公园的评估工具,希望对于公园评估研究与景观规划实务上有所贡献。

    关键词:都市公园;生态系统服务;多评准决策

    Abstract: In the passing years, the research on ecosystem services has received extensive concern, and urban planners, urban residents and other relevant units have also begun to attach importance to the service functions that can be played and contributed in urban ecosystems. As one of the significant land use patterns composed of urban environment, park greenbelt is also a significant place where a great number of scholars indicate that it can provide a variety of ecosystem service functions. In the current research, the evaluation methods of ecosystem services in urban parks are explored with the model of Multiple Criteria Decision Making, and the evaluation values of ecosystem services in existing urban parks of different scales and types are preliminarily probed into through ranking by means of PROMETHEE. The analysis results demonstrate that the provision of ecosystem services in urban parks with larger areas and forests is indeed richer than that in other parks, and scholars in different professional fields hold different views on the weight of evaluation indicators. In the current research, an evaluation tool suitable for urban parks has been initially developed, wishing to make a little bit contribution to park evaluation research and landscape planning practice.

    Key words: urban parks; ecosystem services; multiple criteria decision making

     

    1 研究背景

    都市是一个人类活动与生活的社会、经济、自然的综合生态系统,都市公园与绿地更是都市生态系统中自然环境的重要组成部分。根据联合国《千年生态系统评估报告》所述,每种生态系统都有其生态系统服务之功能[1],而生态系统服务是人们从自然系统中所获得的效益,其生态系统服务功能分为支持、调节、供给和文化服务四大类[2]

    鉴于生态系统服务的功能逐渐受到认同与重视,都市的发展与土地的利用强烈地影响都市中生态系统的服务功能,进而导致都市生态系统的服务功能减少与消失。随着气候变迁以及越趋严峻的条件,相关单位开始意识到都市公园的生态系统中所能发挥的服务功能越来越重要,都市公园绿地的发展也有助于改善都市生活的环境质量,如调节服务中,众多研究表明都市公园绿地所能提供的生态系统服务包括空气净化、微气候调节、减低噪音、雨水入渗、涵养水源及水土保持等;支持及供给服务中,其对于维持生物多样性具有非常卓越的贡献,都市生态系统中的生物多样性与生态系统服务有助于提高都市居民的生活质量。都市生态系统中,公园绿地作为维护生物多样性的重要场所[3],通过都市区重视生物区模式进行整体性的发展考虑,规划、整合生物多样性的总体规划并实践于瑞典首都斯德哥尔摩[4],而过往的研究中亦有运用能值理论的方法进行不同尺度都市公园的生态系统服务成本与效益评估[5]。综上所述,都市绿地公园的生态系统服务研究仍还在针对评价系统中评估项目的确立与目标的建构,并朝先定性再定量的研究方向前进。

    因此,本研究欲对不同尺度与类型的都市公园进行初步的生态系统服务项目进行探讨并考虑相关的附加价值,以期初步建立一个都市公园生态系统服务的评估体系。然而,本研究以初探的形式进行,故选择都市公园里较为广泛应用的两项服务项目进行评估,分别为调节服务与文化服务。本研究针对以下几项研究目的进行探讨:

    1)本研究依据文献回顾与相关分析,结合都市公园的现状,获得都市公园生态系统服务的评选架构及评选因子的阶层关系;

    2)本研究评选因子经由AHP专家问卷调查与分析,获得景观背景与环境工程背景于评选因子的权重分配,并进一步讨论不同领域专家的偏好;

    3)本研究最后以都市区域内三座不同类型与尺度的公园进行评选排序,利用PROMETHEE法定性尺度进行评估,探讨评选结果。

     

    2 材料与方法

    2.1 研究对象

    本研究以台中市旧市区范围内的三座不同类型与尺度的公园为对象,由大到小分别为文心森林公园、中正公园及秋红谷。本研究结合土地利用现状的数据,利用 Arcmap 建立相关数据信息,以便后续进行相关生态系统服务功能项目的评估与评选。

     

    1 文心森林公园

    Figure 1 Wenxin Forest Park

     



     

    2.2 研究方法

    本研究设计AHP专家问卷评估各评选因子的权重,并以分析阶层程序[6]进行评估,最后以PROMETHEE法透过定性排序进行评估结果分析。

    2.2.1 问卷设计

    本研究的问卷通过AHP专家问卷进行调查分析,汇集专家学者的知识及经验,由学者、专家对于评选因子的相对重要性进行评估与分析,进而决定各评选因子的权重比例。

    2.2.2 层次分析法(AHPAnalytic Hierarchy Process)

    AHP分析法由Saary1980年提出,主要分为两大阶段,第一阶段是进行评估层级的建立,第二阶段为层级评估的进行。AHP采用比度作为衡成对比较矩阵的衡,所谓比就是尺值可以进行基本试算,且具有固定的原点,在自然科学方面最常应用。基本上划分为同等重要、稍重要、颇重要、极重要和绝对重要五项,再加上另外的四个尺,介于每两者之间的强,总共可以区分为九个尺,而分别给予一至九的比重。AHP评估的名义尺度内容与意义如表1所示。

    1 评比尺度表

    Table 1 Rating Scale

    评估

    尺度

    定义解释

    1

    同等重要

    (Equal importance)

    两事件的贡献具同等重要性

    3

    稍重要

    (Moderate importance)

    经验与判断显示稍微喜欢哪一方案

    5

    颇重要

    (Essential importance)

    经验与判断显示强喜欢哪一方案

    7

    极重要

    (Very strong importance)

    实际非常强喜欢哪一方案

    9

    绝对重要

    (Extreme importance)

    有足够证据肯定喜爱哪一方案

    2,4,6,8

    中间值

    (Intermediate values)

    折衷值介于之前评估尺

     

    2.2.3 偏好序列结构法(PROMETHEEPreference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation)

    本研究采用多评准分析方法之偏好序列结构法,该方法由Brans等人于1984年所提出[7],基本原理为当评比方案在任一准则下的评估矩阵可由客观衡量来建立,并透过数学的概念处理多评准问题。其优点是考虑评准值的大小差距、消除评准值尺度与单位、不排除无差异的情形。虽然没有任一解为最佳解可满足所有评准,但仍可获得折中过后的折中解,其操作架构基本上为加强偏好结构、加强优势关系及协助决策与评选。

     

    2.2.4 多评准评估方法

    多评准评估方法依据其所能处理的数据型态可分为四大类[8],分别为值化准则评估法,用以处理质化信息的评估问题;质量中介法,用以处理期性质借于质化与量化准则评估法之间;量化准则评估法,用以处理评估准则可数量化的情况;质化与量化准则评估法,用以处理特性为可考虑质化准则兼顾量化准则的评估方法。

     

    3 评选模式建构与实证

    本研究根据AHP问卷汇集景观与环境工程领域的专家学者确立评选因素,决定各项评选因子的绝对权重,最后在三座不同类型的都市公园,利用PROMETHEE法进行评选排序,讨论现状最符合专家学者意象的结果。

    3.1 评选因子阶层关系之建立

    本研究依据评选因子的有效性、易得性、稳定性、可理解性及独立性进行选取,配合生态系统服务相关文献的整理[9-16],初步归纳出生态系统服务评的评选因子,归纳出调节服务及文化服务的评选因子,并建立都市公园评选因子及阶层的关系表,如表2所示。

     

    2 评选因子及阶层关系说明表

    Table 2 Description of Selection Factors and Hierarchy Relations

    类别

    细项

    评估因子

    评断原则

    调节服务

    空气净化

    植被面积x污染物吸收速率

    越高越好

    气候调节

    蒸发率

    越高越好

    固碳量

     

    植被降温潜在能力

    径流调节

    最大潜在降水截流量

    (雨水花园、草沟等设施)

    越高越好

    乔木覆盖密度

    噪音调节

    乔木与道路距离

    越低越好

    文化服务

    休闲游憩

    休闲游憩用地面积

    (可容纳人数)

    越高越好

    景观疗愈

    注意力恢复

    越高越好

    景观美质

    景观美质评估

    越高越好

     

    3.2 评选因子权重之建立

    依据本研究所建立的生态系统服务评选因子及阶层关系表,本研究以AHP专家问卷进行调查,建立各阶层因子的相对重要性评估表。考虑到不同领域之专家学者对于评估因子的重要性认定亦有所差异,因此,本研究分别以景观领域、环境工程领域及综合比较等三个部分进行。本研究于20195月调查19位专家学者,其中景观领域为13位,环境工程领域为6位,借由专家学者的问卷结果进行评选因子的相对重要性值计算,分别以此两种领域及全体的相对重要性值,作几何平均数的处理,以得到三组相对重要性的共识值,再将共识值利用分析阶层程序法操作计算各层因子的相对权重,最后依序将第一层因子的相对权重与第二、第三层因子的乡对权重相乘,得各评选因子的加权值(即为绝对权重),如表3所示。

     

    3 评选因子的乡对权重值表

    Table 3 Table of Relative Weights of Selection Factors

    评估因子

    权重

    类别(第一层)

    景观

    领域

    环境工程领域

    全体

    调节服务

    .5130

    .7908

    .7299

    文化服务

    .4860

    .2092

    .2701

    细项(第二层)

    景观

    领域

    环境工程领域

    全体

    调节服务

    空气净化

    .3610

    .2121

    .3468

    气候调节

    .2810

    .3886

    .2387

    径流调节

    .2560

    .2540

    .2861

    噪音调节

    .1009

    .1453

    .1283

    文化服务

    休闲游憩

    .2608

    .0965

    .4058

    景观疗愈

    .3999

    .2653

    .1885

    景观美质

    .3392

    .6382

    .4058

    因子(第三层)

    景观

    领域

    环境工程领域

    全体

    调节服务

    空气净化

    植被面积x污染物吸收速率

    -

    -

    -

    气候调节

    蒸发率

    .3414

    .3381

    .3927

    固碳量

    .3659

    .3877

    .1828

    植被降温潜在能力

    .2926

    .2742

    .4245

    径流调节

    最大潜在降水截流量 (雨水花园、草沟等设施)

    .5886

    .5691

    .4578

    乔木覆盖密度

    .4114

    .4309

    .5422

    噪音调节

    乔木与道路距离

    -

    -

    -

    文化服务

    休闲游憩

    休闲游憩用地面积(可容纳人数)

    -

    -

    -

    景观疗愈

    注意力恢复

    -

    -

    -

    景观美质

    景观美质评估

    -

    -

    -

     

    4 实证分析

    本研究进一步分析两种领域对于评估体系认知上的差异,以三种不同尺度与类型的都市公园作为分析的方案。借由前段所建置的生态系统服务评选因子阶层,针对景观领域与环境工程领域及全体的权重值分析并将其权重配置于多评准决策系统中,以多评准分析PROMETHEE法进行都市公园生态系统服务的评估排序,PROMETHEE方法中使用定性标准的定性尺度(五点)进行评估与评断,此一方法非透过数字与计量评估,但定性尺度由有序水平进行决策者偏好,汇整结果如表4所示,然后再透过AHP的权重分析结果利用加权法进行PROMETHEE评估排序。总体而言,由PROMETHEE法的分析结果可知,不同类型与尺度的都市公园之生态系统服务评估中,不同领域的专家学者对于评估因子重要性有认知上的差异,而以全体之权重观点来看,三座公园中的调节服务与文化服务功能综合考虑下以文心森林公园最为突出,其次为秋红谷,最后则为中正公园。

     

    4 五点尺度方案评估汇整表

    Table 4 Summary of Evaluation by Five-Point Scale Scheme

    方案

    秋红谷

    文心森

    林公园

    中正

    公园

    类别(第一层)

    调节服务

    极高

    文化服务

    细项(第二层)

    调节服务

    空气净化

    气候调节

    径流调节

    极高

    噪音调节

    极高

    极差

    文化服务

    休闲游憩

    极高

    景观疗愈

    极高

    极低

    景观美质

    极高

    评估因子(第三层)

    调节服务

    空气净化

    植被面积x污染物吸收速率

    极高

    气候调节

    蒸发率

    固碳量

    极高

    植被降温潜在能力

    极高

    径流调节

    最大潜在降水截流量 (雨水花园、草沟等设施)

    极低

    乔木覆盖密度

    噪音调节

    乔木与道路距离

    极低

    文化服务

    休闲游憩

    休闲游憩用地面积(可容纳人数)

    极高

    景观疗愈

    注意力恢复

    极高

    极低

    景观美质

    景观美质评估

    极高

    极低









     

    5 结论与建议

    5.1 结论

    经本研究的分析结果,可整理、归纳出以下几点结论:

    1)评选架构的建立

    本研究所建立的生态系统服务评选因子架构如表2所示。

    2)景观与环境工程领域权重分配的差异

    由景观与环境工程领域权重分配的结果比较,发现在整个评估架构的调节服务、文化服务中,景观领域的专家学者较为注重两类服务功能的均衡,而环境工程领域专家学者较注重调节服务的功能发展;第二层评估细项中,景观领域专家学者认为调节服务中最重要为空气净化,其次为气候调节,第三为径流调节,最后为噪音调节;而环境工程领域专家学者则认为最重要为气候调节,其次为径流调节,第三为空气净化,最后为噪音调节;在文化服务的功能中,景观领域专家学者认为最重要为景观疗愈,其次为景观美质,最后为休闲游憩;在环境工程领域专家学者中,其认为最重要为景观美质,其次为景观疗愈,最后为休闲游憩;第三层评估因子中,景观领域与环境工程领域专家学者皆认为在气候调节的服务项目中最重要为固碳量,其次为蒸发率,第三为植被降温潜在能力;在径流调节的服务功能中,景观领域与环境工程领域专家学者皆认为最重要为最大潜在降水截流量(:雨水花园)、其次为乔木覆盖密度。

    3PROMETHEE评选结果

    PROMETHEE定性尺度之排序结果得知,文心森林公园在此次的生态系统服务评估项目中呈现较高的生态系统服务功能,但由于各领域对于生态系统服务评估项目的偏好不同,因此在排序结果中呈现文心森林公园较符合景观领域与环境工程领域专家学者的生态系统服务的观点,其次为秋红谷,最后则为中正公园,透过PROMETHEE Diamond图形方式显示PROMETHEE I部分排名和PROMETHEE II完整排名顺序,如图4所示;而通过PROMETHEE Rainbow呈现PROMETHEE II净流量的分类图,可以看到作为排序依据的评估因子的权衡标准,较大的且良好的因子将位于顶部,而负面的因子则位于底部,如图5所示。

     

     

     

    5.2建议

    依据本研究所得的结果,提出下列几点建议供后续研究参考:

    1)都市公园生态系统服务项目研究方向

    都市公园的不同尺度与类型所提供的生态系统服务功能与项目,给予人们在都市环境生活中的各种需求,然而,众多的生态系统服务项目中无法一次到位地做完所有评估,本研究希望后续研究中,可先由公园定位角度切入,进而着重于该公园所能提供的最大服务功能为主的深入研究,并提出改善或是发展为多目标且具综合性生态系统服务功能的都市公园。

    2)生态系统服务评量项目

    生态系统服务的评量项目解释与界定范围应该更为明确,本研究中所沿用的相关生态系统服务评估项目,其部分有关信息与数据取得较为不易,建议后续研究可通过间接证明或是容易取得资料的项目着手。

    3)都市公园环境数据库建置

    随着都市公园的研究日趋多元,本研究建议各类型公园的研究结果与资料调查结果应建置数据库进行汇整与搜集,供于后续进行数据分析,并检讨现有使用状况,使都市公园的发展能呼应环境变迁与生态趋势。

     

     

     

    1 Research Background

    City is a social-economic-natural integrated ecosystem of human activities and life. Urban parks and greenbelts are significant components of the natural environment of the urban ecosystem. With reference to the report of the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), each ecosystem has the function of its ecosystem services [1], while ecosystem service is the benefit that people acquire from the natural system, and the functions of its ecosystem services are classified into four major categories, namely Supporting, Regulating, Provisioning and Cultural services [2].

    Since the functions of ecosystem services are gradually taken seriously and recognized, urban development and land use exert a strong impact on the service functions of the ecosystem in the city, thereby resulting in the reduction and disappearance of the service functions of the urban ecosystem. Under the conditions of increasingly severe climate change, relevant units come to realize that the service functions of the ecosystem of urban parks play an increasingly significant role. Moreover, the development of urban park greenbelt also conduces to enhancing the environmental quality of urban life. For instance, numerous studies manifest that the ecosystem services furnished by urban park greenbelts include air purification, microclimate regulation, noise reduction, rainwater infiltration, water resource conservation and soil and water conservation, etc.;

    In the support and supply services, they make vital contribution to the maintenance of biodiversity. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in the urban ecosystem are conducive to boosting the life standards of urban residents. As an important place for biodiversity in the urban ecosystem[3], the park greenbelt takes into consideration the overall development by highlighting the mode of biological zones in the urban area, and plans to integrate the overall biodiversity planning and practice it in Stockholm, Sweden[4], By contrast, previous studies have also employed emergy theory to evaluate the cost and benefit of ecosystem services in urban parks of different scales[5]. To sum up, the research on ecosystem services of urban green parks currently still aims at establishing evaluation system evaluation items and setting objectives, moving forward to qualitative and quantitative research.

    Hence, the current research intends to investigate the preliminary ecosystem services of urban parks of different scales and types and take into account the relevant added value, with a view to initially set up an evaluation system of ecosystem services of urban parks. However, the current research is conducted in the form of a preliminary study, so two service items widely employed in urban parks are specially selected for evaluation, namely, regulating service and cultural service. The current research is designed for the following research purposes:

    (1) In light of literature review and relevant analysis, the current research, in conjunction with the current situation of urban parks, acquires the evaluation framework of urban park ecosystem services and the hierarchical relationship of evaluation factors.

    (2) Through the questionnaire survey and analysis of AHP experts, the current research acquires the weight distribution of landscape background and environmental engineering background in the selection factors, and further elaberates the preferences of experts in different fields.

    (3) Finally, the current research ranks three parks of different types and scales in the urban area, and evaluates them with legal scale of PROMETHEE to explore the selection results.

     

    2 Materials and Methods

    2.1 Research subjects

    The current research takes three parks of different types and scales in the old urban area of Taichung City as the object, namely Wenxin Forest Park, Zhongzheng Park and Qiuhong Valley from the largest to the smallest. By consulting the data of current land use, Arcmap is employed to acquire relevant data information for subsequent evaluation and selection of relevant ecosystem service function items.

    2.2. Research Methods

    In the current research, AHP expert questionnaire is designed to evaluate the weight of each evaluation factor, and the evaluation is conducted via the analytic hierarchy process[6], and in the last step, PROMETHEE method is employed to analyze the evaluation results through qualitative ranking.

    2.2.1. Questionnaire Design

    The questionnaire of the current research is investigated and analyzed through AHP expert questionnaire, which gathers the knowledge and experience of scholars and experts. The scholars and experts evaluate and analyze the relative importance of the selection factors, and then determine the weight proportion of each selection factor.

    2.2.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

    AHP analysis method was proposed by Saary in 1980, which is principally classified into two stages, the first stage is to establish evaluation hierarchy and the second stage is to implement hierarchy evaluation. AHP employs the ratio scale to measure the pairwise comparison matrix. The so-called ratio scale is that the value of the scale can be subject to trial calculation basically and has a fixed origin. It is most commonly employed in natural science. Basically, it is classified into five items of equal importance, moderate importance, essential importance, very strong importance and extreme importance, and plus another four scales, the strength between the two can be classified into nine scales in total, given a proportion of 1 to 9 respectively.

    The content and significance of nominal scale of AHP evaluation are displayed in Table 1.

    2.2.3 PROMETHEEPreference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation

    The current research adopts the PROMETHEE, a multi-criteria analysis method proposed by Brans et al. in 1984[7]. The basic principle is that when the evaluation matrix of the evaluation scheme in any criterion can be built by objective measurement, and the multiple-criteria problems are handled with the concept of mathematics, its advantages are to consider the differences of evaluation values, eliminate the scale and unit of evaluation values, and not exclude the situation of no difference. Despite that none of the solutions is the best solution that can satisfy all the evaluation criteria, a compromise solution can still be acquired after the offset. The operational framework of the period is basically to consolidate the preference structure, intensify the dominant relationship, and assist in decision-making and selection.

    2.2.4 Multi-criteria Evaluation Method

    With reference to the types of data it can process, multi-criteria evaluation method can be classified into four major categories[8], respectively as follows: valuation criteria evaluation method, which is employed to deal with the evaluation problems of qualitative information; quality intermediary method, which is employed to deal with the nature of the period between qualitative and quantitative criteria evaluation methods; quantitative criteria evaluation method, which is employed to deal with the situation that evaluation criteria can be quantified; qualitative and quantitative criteria evaluation method, which is employed to deal with the evaluation method in consideration of both qualitative criteria and quantitative criteria.

     

    3 Construction and Demonstration of Selection Mode

    With reference to the AHP questionnaire, experts and scholars specialized in landscape and environmental engineering are invited to determine the selection factors and the absolute weight of each selection factor. Finally, in three different types of urban parks, PROMETHEE method is employed to rank the selection, and the current situation is explored to seek for the most consistent result with the image of experts and scholars.

    3.1 Establishment of Hierarchical Relationship of Selection Factors

    Premised on the effectiveness, accessibility, stability, comprehensibility and independence of the selection factors, and in coordination with the collation of relevant literature on ecosystem services[9-16], the current research preliminarily concludes the selection factors for evaluation of ecosystem services and the selection factors for regulating services and cultural services, and prepares the relationship table of selection factors of urban parks and hierarchies, as displayed in Table 2.

    3.2 Establishment of Weights for Selection Factors

    With reference to the evaluation factors of ecosystem services and the table of hierarchy relationship prepared in this research, the current research conducts investigation by designing an AHP expert questionnaire and establishes the evaluation table of relative importance of each hierarchy factor. Given that experts and scholars specialized in different fields hold different views on the importance of evaluation factors, the current research is conducted from three parts: landscape, environmental engineering and comprehensive comparison. In the current research, 19 experts and scholars were surveyed in May 2019, including 13 in the landscape field and 6 in the environmental engineering field. In light of the questionnaire results of experts and scholars, the relative importance values of the selection factors were calculated. The relative importance values of the two fields and the whole were treated as geometric averages so as to acquire three sets of consensus values of relative importance. Then the consensus values were employed to calculate the relative weight of each layer of factors by the operation of analytic hierarchy process. Finally, the relative weights of the first-hierarchy factors and the relative weights of the second-hierarchy and third-hierarchy factors were multiplied in sequence to acquire the weighted value (i.e. absolute weight) of each selection factor, as displayed in Table 3.

     

    4 Empirical Analysis

    The current research further analyzes the cognitive differences in the evaluation system between the two fields, and takes urban parks of three different scales and types as the analysis scheme. Premised on the hierarchy of selection factors of ecosystem services built in the previous paragraph, the weighted values of landscape, environmental engineering and the whole are analyzed and allocated in the Multiple-Criteria Decision Making System, and the multiple-criteria analysis -PROMETHEE method is adopted to evaluate and rank the ecosystem services of urban parks. The PROMETHEE method carries out evaluation and judgment with the qualitative scale (five points) of the qualitative standard. This method does not use numerical and quantitative evaluation, but the qualitative scale is preferred by decision makers at an orderly level. The integration results are displayed in Table 4. Then, through the weight analysis results of AHP, PROMETHEE evaluation and ranking are launched by the weight method. In general, in line with PROMETHEE analysis results, experts and scholars specialized in different fields have cognitive differences on the importance of evaluation factors in ecosystem services evaluation of urban parks of different types and scales. While from the point of view of the weight of the whole, Wenxin Forest Park is the most prominent, followed by Qiuhong Valley and finally Zhongzheng Park with regard to its functions of regulating and cultural services.

     

    5 Conclusions and Recommendations

    5.1. Conclusions

    Premised on the analysis results of the current research, the following conclusions can be summarized:

    (1) Establishment of the selection framework

    The framework of selection factors of ecosystem services built in the current research is displayed in Table 2.

    (2) Differences in Weight Distribution between Landscape and Environmental Engineering

    By comparing the results of weight distribution between landscape and environmental engineering, it is discovered that in the regulating service and cultural service of the whole evaluation framework, landscape experts and scholars attach more importance to the balance of the two service functions, while environmental engineering experts and scholars lay more emphasis on the functional development of regulating service. In the detailed items of the second-hierarchy evaluation, landscape experts and scholars hold that in regulating services, air purification is the most significant, followed by climate regulation, runoff regulation, and noise regulation, while environmental engineering experts and scholars view that climate regulation is the most significant, followed by runoff regulation, air purification, and noise regulation. In respect of the function of cultural service, landscape experts and scholars consider that landscape healing is the most significant, landscape beauty quality is the second, and recreation is the last. While in the view of environmental engineering experts and scholars, landscape beauty quality is the most significant, landscape healing is the second, and recreation is the last; among the third-hierarchy evaluation, experts and scholars in the fields of landscape and environmental engineering all believe that carbon sequestration is the most significant service item for climate regulation, followed by evaporation rate, and the third is the potential capability of vegetation cooling; with respect to the service function for runoff regulation, experts and scholars in the fields of landscape and environmental engineering all deem that the most significant is the maximum potential rainfall interception (e.g. rainwater garden) and the second is the coverage density of trees.

    (3) Results of PROMETHEE Selection

    Learning from the ranking results of PROMETHEE qualitative scale, Wenxin Forest Park has taken on a higher ecosystem service function in this ecosystem services evaluation project. However, resulting from different preferences for items of ecosystem services evaluation in different fields, in the ranking results, Wenxin Forest Park represents the viewpoint that ecosystem service is more in line with experts and scholars in the fields of landscape and environmental engineering, followed by Qiuhong Valley, and finally Zhongzheng Park. The partial ranking of PROMETHEE I and the complete ranking sequence of PROMETHEE II are displayed by means of PROMETHEE Diamond graphs, as presented in Figure 4; and by presenting the classification chart of net flow of PROMETHEE II through PROMETHEE Rainbow, we can see the trade-off criteria of the evaluation factors as the basis for ranking: the larger and better factors will be at the top, while the negative factors will be at the bottom, as displayed in Figure 5.

    5.2. Recommendations

    Premised on the results of the current research, the following suggestions are put forward for reference in the follow-up study:

    (1) Research Direction of Ecosystem Services of Urban Parks

    The ecosystem service functions and items furnished by different scales and types of urban parks supply a variety of needs and orientations of human beings in urban environmental life, but among the numerous ecosystem service items, all evaluations cannot be completed once and for ever. The current research wishes that in the follow-up study, researchers can proceed from the perspective of park positioning, and then emphatically conduct in-depth study of the maximum service function that the park can provide, and propose to enhance or develop it into a multi-objective urban park with comprehensive ecosystem service functions.

    (2) Evaluation and Measurement Items of Ecosystem Services

    The interpretation and definition of the evaluation and measurement items of ecosystem services should be made clearer. It is difficult to acquire some information and data concerned with the eco-system services evaluation items employed in the current research, so the follow-up research is suggested to be started through indirect certification or items with easily acquired data.

    (3) Establishment of Environment Database of Urban Parks

    As the research of urban parks becoming increasingly diversified, the current research suggests that the research results and data investigation results of all types of parks should be compiled and collected by building a database so as to facilitate in analyzing subsequent data and reviewing the existing usage status, in a bid to make the development of urban parks respond to environmental changes and ecological trends.

     

    参考文献

    1. Assessment, M. E. (2001). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

    2. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Raskin, R. G. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, 387(6630), 253.

    3. Savard, J. P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and urban planning, 48(3-4), 131-142.

    4. Löfvenhaft, K., Björn, C., & Ihse, M. (2002). Biotope patterns in urban areas: a conceptual model integrating biodiversity issues in spatial planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2-4), 223-240.

    5. Almeida, C. M. V. B., Mariano, M. V., Agostinho, F., Liu, G. Y., Yang, Z. F., Coscieme, L., & Giannetti, B. F. (2018). Comparing costs and supply of supporting and regulating services provided by urban parks at different spatial scales. Ecosystem Services, 30, 236-247.

    6. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.

    7. Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 163-186). Springer, New York, NY.

    8. 冯正民, & 江俊. (1988). 计画评估方法之评述. 规划学报, (15), 67-86.

      Feng, C.M., & Jiang, J.L. (1988). Review of the evaluation method of the project. Journal of Planning, (15), 67-86.

    9. 李锋, & 王如松. (2004). 城市绿色空间生态服务功能研究进展. 应用生态学报, (3), 527-531.

      Li, F. & Wang, R.S. (2004). Research advance in ecosystem service of urban green space. The journal of applied ecology. (15). 527-531.

    10. 李锋, & 王如松. (2004). 城市绿色空间生态服务功能研究进展. 应用生态学报, (3), 527-531.

    11. 毛齐正, 黄甘霖, & 邬建国. (2015). 城市生态系统服务研究综述. 应用生态学报, 26(4), 1023-1033.

      Mao, Q.Z., Huang G.L,, & Wu, J.G. (2015). Urban ecosystem services: A review. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology. 26(4). 1023-1033.

    12. Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Warren, P. H., Davies, R. G., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and urban planning, 83(4), 308-317.

    13. Breuste, J., Haase, D., & Elmqvist, T. (2013). Urban landscapes and ecosystem services. Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes, 83-104.

    14. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive.

    15. Yang, Q., Liu, G., Casazza, M., Campbell, E. T., Giannetti, B. F., & Brown, M. T. (2018). Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation. Ecosystem services, 34, 37-54.

    16. Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., Hoehn, R. E., Walton, J. T., & Bond, J. (2008). A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Aboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34 (6): 347-358., 34(6).

    17. Larondelle, N., & Haase, D. (2013). Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators, 29, 179-190.

      (整理:赵迪 译:张玉瑶)

     

    上一条:区域景观生态安全格局视角下的天津市海河教育园区二期绿廊景观设计实践 下一条:高密度城市容积率奖励机制对公共空间形成作用的研究:纽约和东京的比较

    关闭