Application of payment for ecosystem services in China’s rangeland conservation initiatives: a social-ecological system perspective
Application of payment for ecosystem services in China’s rangeland conservation initiatives: a social-ecological system perspective
复制标题
DOI：
10.1071/rj14014
复制
发表时间：
2015-06
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Yanbo Li;Mingming Fan;Wenjun Li
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yanbo Li;Mingming Fan;Wenjun Li
中国政府已将生态系统服务付费（PES）作为防止或恢复大规模退化牧场的主要途径。以内蒙古阿拉善盟生态补偿项目“退牧还草”为例，对该项目的长期生态后果进行了评价，并从社会生态系统的角度探讨了相关问题的成因。研究结果表明，在案例研究地区使用的生态系统服务费用支付办法不太可能在长期内实现牧场恢复的预期结果。这种失败的根本原因是生态系统服务付费办法侧重于终点生态系统服务（产出），而与此同时，社会和生态系统之间的反馈是产生这种服务的关键。这就把整个社会生态系统推入了一个不受欢迎的吸引力盆地。它的结论是，一个生态系统服务补偿方案的牧区系统应旨在提高这种耦合的社会-生态系统的外部冲击和变化的弹性，而不是简单地维持生态服务，而不考虑这种服务的起源在人与环境的相互关系。在未来的政策讨论中，“生态系统服务付费”应该被“社会生态系统恢复力付费”所取代。
The Chinese government has adopted Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a main approach for preventing or restoring rangelands perceived as undergoing degradation on a massive scale. Using the PES project, known as the ‘retire livestock, restore rangeland’ project in Alxa of Inner Mongolia as an example, the long-term ecological consequences of such projects is assessed, and the causes of the associated problems from the perspective of social-ecological system explored. Study findings demonstrate that PES, as used in the case study area, is unlikely to achieve the expected outcome of rangeland restoration in the long term. The root cause of such failure is that the PES approach focuses on end-point ecosystem services (outputs), while at the same time decoupling the feedbacks among social and ecological systems that are the key to generating such services. This drives the overall social-ecological system into an undesirable basin of attraction. It is concluded that a PES program for pastoral systems should aim to improve resilience of such a coupled social-ecological system to external shocks and changes, instead of simply maintaining ecological services without considering the origins of such services in the inter-relationship of humans and environment. It is argued that ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ should be displaced by ‘Payment for Social-ecological System Resilience’ in future policy discussions.