基于SolVES 的吊罗山生态系统文化服务价值评估

Assessment of ecosystem cultural service values in the Diaoluoshan area of Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park based on the SolVES model

摘要

生态系统文化服务（cultural ecosystem services，CES）价值反映了人类在特定情境下对生态系统非物质惠益的感知与偏好。以海南热带雨林国家公园吊罗山为研究对象，于 2024 年上半年获得有效问卷 231 份（有效率 94.67%），提取社会价值点 12 167 个。基于生态系统服务社会价值（social values for ecosystem services，SolVES）模型，结合加权核密度估计构建 0～10 的价值指数栅格，并通过平均最近邻分析与全局 Moran's I 检验其空间聚集显著性，同时耦合最大熵模型（maximum entropy model，MaxEnt）评估环境因子对 CES 价值格局的约束。结果表明：1）社会价值热点主要集中于后山景区、房车营地、吊罗小镇等少数游憩节点，冷点集中于小妹水库与大里瀑布附近，呈现“节点集聚-外围稀疏”的总体格局；在 24 个景点中，山地雨林社会价值点最多（655 个，5.38%），其次为天湖与枫果山瀑布（合计 617 个，5.07%），大森林酒店最少（390 个，3.21%）。2）7 类价值均表现为聚集分布：平均最近邻比率均小于 1 且Z 值为负值；全局 Moran's I 表明各价值类型价值指数均呈显著正空间自相关（P< 0.001）。3）SolVES–MaxEnt 模型表现良好，各价值类型训练集受试者工作特征曲线下面积（area Under the receiver operating characteristic curve，AUC）为 0.942 7～0.966 6，测试集 AUC 为 0.944 6～0.966 4。4）环境响应表明“可达性-亲水可感知性”是 CES 价值集聚的关键约束：距道路距离对多数价值类型贡献突出，距水体距离（distance to waterbodies，DTW）呈现明确偏好阈值，多数文化价值类型的最大价值指数对应的 DTW 约 39 m。结合价值点数量（N），受访者偏好及重要程度排序为：美学价值 > 生物多样性价值 > 经济价值 > 娱乐价值 > 历史文化价值 > 科研教育价值 > 康体疗养价值。研究为国家公园游憩分区管控与游客流线组织提供空间化依据。

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem service (CES) values capture how people perceive and prioritize the non-material benefits provided by ecosystems in specific contexts. An attempt was made to assess the CES values at the Diaoluoshan area in Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park. Questionaires were delivered and 231 valid questionnaires were received in the first half of 2024 (response rate: 94.67%), from which 12,167 social value points were extracted. The Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) model was used to combine weighted kernel density estimation to generate a 0-10 value index raster. Spatial clustering was assessed with Average Nearest Neighbor analysis and Global Moran's I, and SolVES was coupled with the Maximum Entropy model (MaxEnt) to evaluate how environmental factors constrain CES value patterns. Results show that social value hotspots are mainly concentrated around a few recreation nodes-Houshan Scenic Area, the RV campground, and Diaoluo Town, whereas cold spots occur near Xiaomei Reservoir and Dali Waterfall, forming an overall pattern of “node-based clustering with sparse surroundings”. Among 24 attractions, the mountain rainforest contains the largest number of social value points (655; 5.38%), followed by Tianhu Lake and Fengguoshan Waterfall combined (617; 5.07%), while Dasenlin Hotel has the fewest (390; 3.21%). All seven value types exhibit clustered distributions, with Average Nearest Neighbor ratios < 1 and negative Z-scores; Global Moran's I indicates significant positive spatial autocorrelation in value indices for all value types ( P < 0.001). The SolVES–MaxEnt models perform well, with training AUC values of 0.942 7-0.966 6 and testing AUC values of 0.944 6-0.966 4 across value types. Environmental responses highlight accessibility and perceived proximity to water as key constraints on CES clustering: distance to roads contributes highly for most value types, and distance to waterbodies (DTW) shows a clear preference threshold, with the maximum value index for most cultural value types occurring at DTW ≈ 39 m. Based on the number of value points (N), respondents' preference and perceived importance rank in the order of aesthetic value > biodiversity value > economic value > recreation value > historical-cultural value > scientific-educational value > health and wellness value. These findings provide spatially explicit evidence to support recreation zoning, management, and visitor-route design in national parks.

关键词

生态系统文化服务价值 / 社会价值点 / SolVES–MaxEnt / 海南热带雨林国家公园

Key words

Cultural ecosystem service value / social value points / SolVES–MaxEnt / Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park

参考文献

[1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis[M]. Washington: Island Press, 2005: 40.

[2] Reid W V, Mooney H A, Cropper A, et al. Ecosystems and human well-being-synthesis: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment[M]. Washington: Island Press, 2005: 40.

[3] United Nations. System of environmental economic accounting: Ecosystem accounting[EB/OL].[2025-07-01]. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting.

[4] Daniel T C, Muhar A, Arnberger A, et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012, 109(23): 8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109

[5] Fish R, Church A, Winter M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 21: 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002

[6] Busch C, Specht K, Inostroza L, et al. Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2024, 70: 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101675

[7] Pu X T, Ding W G, Ye W F, et al. Ecosystem service research in protected areas: a systematic review of the literature on current practices and future prospects[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2023, 154: 110817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110817

[8] Crouzat E, De Frutos A, Grescho V, et al. Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2022, 53: 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101395

[9] Carson R T. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2012, 26(4): 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27

[10] Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004, 24(1): 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0

[11] Pelletier M C, Heagney E, Kovač M. Valuing recreational services: a review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2021, 50: 101315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101315

[12] Willis K G, Garrod G D. An individual travel-cost method of evaluating forest recreation[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991, 42(1): 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1991.tb00330.x

[13] Cooper N, Brady E, Steen H, et al. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 21: 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014

[14] Brown G, Raymond C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment[J]. Applied Geography, 2007, 27(2): 89-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002

[15] Brown G, Reed P, Raymond C M. Mapping place values: 10 lessons from two decades of public participation GIS empirical research[J]. Applied Geography, 2020, 116: 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102156

[16] Jones L, Holland R A, Ball J, et al. A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space[J]. People and Nature, 2020, 2(1): 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10057

[17] Sherrouse B C, Clement J M, Semmens D J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services[J]. Applied Geography, 2011, 31(2): 748-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002

[18] Sherrouse B C, Semmens D J. Validating a method for transferring social values of ecosystem services between public lands in the Rocky Mountain region[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2014, 8: 166-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.008

[19] Sherrouse B C, Semmens D J, Ancona Z H. Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): open-source spatial modeling of cultural services[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2022, 148: 105259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105259

[20] 钟敬秋, 彭帅, 高梦凡, 等. 生态系统文化服务流空间多尺度研究——以辽河口国家公园为例[J]. 地理科学进展 , 2024, 43(11): 2226-2241. https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2024.11.010

[21] Kong I, Sarmiento F O, Mu L. Crowdsourced text analysis to characterize the U. S. National Parks based on cultural ecosystem services[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2023, 233: 104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104692

[22] 刘璇, 王思元. 基于参与式地理信息系统的城市绿地生态系统文化服务评价——以北京市核心区为例[J]. 风景园林 , 2024, 31(7): 131-136. https://doi.org/10.3724/j.fjyl.202307100311

[23] 席丹丹. 公众认知下的城市荒野景观价值评价与再野化策略研究： 以成都青龙湖湿地公园为例[D]. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2024. https://doi.org/10.27345/d.cnki.gsnyu.2024.001148

[24] 庄思冰, 龚建周, 陈康林, 等. 粤港澳大湾区小型公园绿地生态系统文化服务的供需匹配特征[J]. 生态学报 , 2023, 43(14): 5714-5725. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb202203310820

[25] 于洋, 杨仙, 李想, 等. 城市公园绿地生态系统文化服务供需匹配评价与耦合协调[J]. 风景园林, 2025, 32(3): 90-99. https://doi.org/10.3724/j.fjyl.202408260483

[26] 欧阳志云, 唐小平, 杜傲, 等. 科学建设国家公园: 进展、挑战与机遇[J]. 国家公园 (中英文), 2023, 1(2): 67-74. https://doi.org/10.20152/j.np.2023.02.001

[27] 杨良健, 章锦河, 王静玮, 等. 国家公园生态系统文化服务研究进展及展望[J]. 国家公园 (中英文), 2024, 2(8): 524-533. https://doi.org/10.20152/j.np.202407300086

[28] 刘钊军. 海南热带雨林国家公园保护价值及高质量建设计划[J]. 国家公园 (中英文), 2023, 1(4): 250-254. https://doi.org/10.20152/j.np.202312260040

[29] 人民网海南频道. 陵水发布 3 条雨林体验精品旅游线路 [EB/OL]. (2023-06-21)[2025-07-01]. https://hi.people.com.cn/n2/2023/0621/c231207-40466726.html.

[30] 海南省林业局. 海南陵水书写热带雨林国家公园吊罗山片区新篇章[EB/OL]. (2023-11-24)[2025-07-01]. http://hnlmzm.com/ywdt/mtjj/202311/t20231124_3534017.html.

[31] Sherrouse B C, Semmens D J, Clement J M. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014, 36: 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008

[32] Chen Y Y, Ke X L, Min M, et al. Disparity in perceptions of social values for ecosystem services of urban green space: a case study in the East Lake Scenic Area, Wuhan[J]. Frontiers in Public Health, 2020, 8: 370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00370

[33] Duan H R, Xu N. Assessing social values for ecosystem services in rural areas based on the SolVES model: a case study from Nanjing, China[J]. Forests, 2022, 13(11): 1877. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111877

[34] Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M B. Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5.1): a policy brief[J]. One Ecosystem, 2018, 3: e27108. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108

[35] Sherrouse B C, Semmens D J. Social Values for Ecosystem Services, version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0): documentation and user manual[R]. Reston: U. S. Geological Survey, 2015. doi: 10.3133/ofr20151008

[36] Merow C, Smith M J, Silander J A, Jr. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species' distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter[J]. Ecography, 2013, 36(10): 1058-1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x

[37] Warren D L, Seifert S N. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria[J]. Ecological Applications, 2011, 21(2): 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1171.1

[38] Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis[J]. Pattern Recognition Letters, 2006, 27(8): 861-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010

[39] Swets J A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems[J]. Science, 1988, 240(4857): 1285-1293. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3287615

[40] 孙哲, 王传胜. 青藏高原国家公园群游憩活动可达性与生态保护价值的空间耦合性[J]. 地理研究, 2025, 44(8): 2121-2133. https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020240954

[41] Cai C, van Riper C J, Johnson D, et al. Integrating social values with GPS tracks through Denali National Park and Preserve[J]. Applied Geography, 2023, 155: 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102958

[42] Medina-Chavarria M E, Gutiérrez A, Saladié Ò. Managing visitor flows in protected areas in a context of changing mobilities: an analysis of challenges, responses, and learned lessons during the pandemic in Tarragona Province (Spain)[J]. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 2024, 12(1): 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.01.005

[43] 张玉钧, 张欣瑶, 刘彦彤, 等. 从全民共享到全民共育： 国家公园自然教育的未来发展走向[J]. 国家公园 (中英文), 2024, 2(11): 715-722. https://doi.org/10.20152/j.np.202410160131

[44] 包惠媛, 乌恩. 基于游客期望价值的秦岭国家公园自然教育发展对策[J]. 中国城市林业, 2025, 23(6): 155-161. https://doi.org/10.12169/zgcsly.2025.08.15.0002

[45] Calicis E, Costa J, Pérez-Alberti A, et al. Exploring visitor patterns in Island Natural Parks: the relationship between photo locations, trails, and land use[J]. Land, 2024, 13(12): 2003. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122003

[46] Pagneux E, Sturludóttir E, Ólafsdóttir R. Modelling of recreational trails in mountainous areas: an analysis of sensitivity to slope data resolution[J]. Applied Geography, 2023, 160: 103112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103112

[47] Li J Y, Feng X, Li T, et al. Seasonal dynamics of hiking activities in mountainous areas: a topography-aware sequential network modeling approach using crowdsourced trajectories[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2025, 142: 104726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2025.104726

[48] Phillips S. A brief tutorial on Maxent[R]. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 2010.

[49] Abbot J I O, Thomas D H L, Gardner A A, et al. Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon[J]. World Development, 2001, 29(7): 1115-1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00033-X

[50] Ma T, Swallow B, Foggin J M, et al. Co-management for sustainable development and conservation in Sanjiangyuan National Park and the surrounding Tibetan nomadic pastoralist areas[J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2023, 10(1): 321. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01756-1

[51] Ma T, Swallow B, Foggin J M, et al. Developing co-management for conservation and local development in China’s national parks: findings from focus group discussions in the Sanjiangyuan Region[J]. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2023, 4: 903788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2023.903788

[52] 马思静, 张家荣, 张玉钧, 等. 基于扎根理论方法的国家公园社区适应性协同治理机制： 以三江源国家公园为例 [J]. 自然资源学报 , 2023, 38(4): 1089-1103. https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20230417

[53] Interagency Visitor Use Management Council (U. S.). Visitor use management framework: a guide to providing sustainable outdoor recreation[M]. Denver: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2016: 30−37, 46− 48.

基金资助

海南热带雨林国家公园体制试点区社区规划研究项目(421QN200)