Securing water for wetland conservation: a comparative analysis of policy options to protect a national nature reserve in China.
Securing water for wetland conservation: a comparative analysis of policy options to protect a national nature reserve in China.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.033
复制
发表时间：
2012-02
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Jian Wu;Junjie Wu;Xiaoxiang Wang;Ma Zhong
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jian Wu;Junjie Wu;Xiaoxiang Wang;Ma Zhong
本研究评估了四种政策方案，以确保在七星河湿地保护所需的水供应，在中国的国家湿地自然保护区-使用四个标准：成本效益，成功实现节水目标的概率，政治可行性，农民接受。这一多标准分析框架揭示了政策制定者在四种政策选择中进行选择时的生态、经济和社会政治权衡。结果表明，在湿地周围地区的灌溉基础设施升级（选项I）是最政治可行的选择，但它是第二个最好的选择，在成本效益方面。建坝蓄水和防洪（方案二）是实现节水目标最可靠的方法。这也是农民最喜欢的策略。但这一选择成本效益最低，而且得不到地方政府的支持。促进农民采用节水做法（备选方案三）是最具成本效益的，但在实现节水目标方面不如备选方案一或二可靠。将水稻作物转换为旱地作物（方案四）在政治上是不可行的，而且实现节水目标的可靠性最低。这四个备选方案的总体排名是根据决策者对四个标准的显示权重确定的。第一个选项是选项I，其次是选项II、III和IV。
This study evaluates four policy options to secure the water supply needed for wetland conservation in Qixinghe—a national wetland nature reserve in China—using four criteria: cost effectiveness, probability of success in achieving the water-saving goal, political feasibility, and farmer acceptance. This multi-criteria analysis framework reveals the ecological, economic, and socio-political trade-offs for policymakers when choosing among the four policy options. Results suggest that upgrading irrigation infrastructure in the area surrounding the wetland (Option I) is the most politically feasible option, but it is the second best option in terms of cost effectiveness. Constructing a dam to store and control floodwater (Option II) is the most reliable for achieving the water-saving goal. It is also the farmers’ most favored strategy. But this option is the least cost effective and receives little support from local governments. Promoting farmers’ adoption of water-saving practices (Option III) is the most cost effective, but it is less reliable for achieving the water-saving goal than Options I or II. Converting paddy crops to dry-land crops (Option IV) is politically infeasible and least reliable for achieving the water-saving goal. The overall ranking of the four options is determined using the policymakers’ revealed weights on the four criteria. Option I is ranked first, followed by Options II, III, and IV.