| 摘要: |
| 由快速城市化导致的生境破碎化严重影响了生态系统的服务功能。因此，保护与规划城市生境尤为重要。然而目前科学的生境规划设计方法仍有待探索，因为生境的定义具有不同的视角与内涵。基于保护生物学与景观生态学理论，对比了物种视角与景观视角下的2种规划思路，并结合北京市密云区的生境规划，分析对比2种方法的规划结果。在物种方法中，首先选取承担多种生态作用的豹猫为目标物种，运用HSI模型并结合专家赋值法和层次分析法确定每个评价因子的权重，最后通过ArcGIS计算选取高适宜性源地并建立生态网络。景观方法则基于ArcGIS、Guidos、Conefor等软件平台，采用MSPA和景观连通性分析方法，选取重要核心区源地并建立景观生境网络。研究结果表明，2种方法的源地分布差异较大。因此生境规划不能盲目选择一种方法，需有机结合2种方法得到源地与廊道结果。根据地块承载的生境生态功能重要程度确定源地核心保护区，以实现最佳的生境规划和有效的生态系统服务。 |
| 关键词: 风景园林 景观生态学 生境规划 目标物种 空间格局 生态网络 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号:TU986 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Comparison of Habitat Planning in Miyun District of Beijing Based on Different Perspectives and Approaches |
|
WANG Zhifang, LIANG Chunxue
|
|
Peking University
|
| Abstract: |
| Habitat fragmentation caused by rapid urbanization has seriously affected the service function of the ecosystem. Therefore, protecting and reshaping urban habitats is particularly important. Because the definition of habitat has different connotations and perspectives, scientific planning and design of urban habitats are yet to be further explored. Based on the theory of conservation biology and landscape ecology, this paper compares two planning ideas: species-based perspective and approach (conservation of target species), landscape-based perspective and approach (conservation of landscape pattern). The case study focuses on the habitat planning of Miyun District of Beijing and analyzes the planning results. On species-based perspective, Ocelot is selected as the target species considering its multifaceted ecological effects. HSI (Habitat, suitability, index) model is used to assess habitat areas with the weights of each evaluation factor determined by expert assignment method and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Finally, selecting high suitability location and establishing ecological network through ArcGIS calculation. On landscape-based perspective, utilizing primarily ArcGIS, Guidos, Conefor, this approach selects the important source of core area by MSPA method and then establishes ecological network by landscape connectivity analysis method. The results demonstrate the geographic distribution difference between the two approaches is significant. We find out the source of the core protected areas according to the importance of habitat ecological function. This paper calls for strategic selection of habitat planning approaches instead of blindly using just one approach. An integrated landscape and species perspectives can be used to achieve optimal habitat planning and ecosystem services |
| Key words: landscape architecture landscape ecology habitat planning target species spatial pattern ecological network |
