Protection effect area comparison evaluation method oriented to national key ecological function areas and county areas

Abstract

The invention relates to the field of county protection effect area comparison and evaluation methods, and discloses a county protection effect area comparison and evaluation method oriented to national key ecological functional areas, comprising the following steps: S1, calculating comparable protection effect indexes of the key ecological functional areas; s2, calculating a county relative habitat quality index in the key ecological functional area; s3, county-scale comparable protection effect index calculation of cross-key ecological function areas is carried out; according to the method provided by the invention, comparison and evaluation of the county region in a single key ecological functional region and the county region biodiversity protection effect space of different key ecological functional regions are realized, and a protection effect region comparison and evaluation method system is further improved, so that a powerful tool is provided for transfer payment of the key ecological functional regions.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of regional comparative evaluation methods for the effectiveness of county-level conservation efforts, specifically to a regional comparative evaluation method for the effectiveness of conservation efforts in counties within national key ecological function zones. Background Technology

[0002] The national key ecological function zone transfer payment is China's largest ecological compensation project. In 2024, the Ministry of Finance allocated a total of 112.1 billion yuan in ecological transfer payments, covering 818 counties. Scientifically assessing the effectiveness of county-level protection is the foundation for equitable transfer.

[0003] Chinese patent application CN201810146386.5, entitled "A Regional Comparative Assessment Method for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Effectiveness Based on a Reference Benchmark," constructs a habitat quality reference benchmark and generates a relative habitat quality index by subtracting the habitat quality index of the assessment area from that of the reference area. This allows for a regional comparative assessment of the conservation effectiveness of different ecological function zones. However, transfer payments are made to county-level administrative units. Therefore, it is more important to construct a spatial comparative assessment method applicable to counties within the same key ecological function zone and across counties in different key ecological function zones. Based on the above, this invention proposes a regional comparative assessment method for conservation effectiveness in counties within national key ecological function zones. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a regional comparative evaluation method for the protection effectiveness of counties in key national ecological function zones, in order to solve the problems mentioned in the background art.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a method for regional comparative evaluation of protection effectiveness in counties within national key ecological function zones, comprising the following steps:

[0006] Step S1: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones. Select a reference area, obtain a habitat quality raster map using the InVEST model, confirm the reference benchmark index using the Zonal Statistical function in ArcGIS software, and calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones.

[0007] Step S2: Calculation of the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. First, calculate the change in habitat quality; second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality change; and finally, calculate the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones.

[0008] Step S3: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones. Based on the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in Step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones in Step S2, calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones.

[0009] As a preferred embodiment, the specific process for calculating the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in step S1 is as follows: First, select areas within the key ecological function zones that are less disturbed by humans as reference areas; second, use the InVEST model to obtain the habitat quality of the key function zones over a long period of time. The raster map uses the Zonal Static function in ArcGIS software to statistically analyze the maximum value of habitat quality over a long time series in the reference area, which serves as the benchmark index. The calculation of the comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones is shown in equation (1).

[0010] (1)

[0011] In the formula, It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. This refers to the habitat quality index for this functional area. This serves as the benchmark index for this functional area.

[0012] As a preferred method, the calculation process of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological function zone in step S2 is as follows: First, calculate the change in habitat quality of counties within the key ecological function zone during the study period; second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality changes of all counties within the key ecological function zone. The calculation method of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological function zone is shown in equation (2).

[0013] (2)

[0014] In the formula, This refers to the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. This represents the maximum value of habitat quality changes across all counties within the key ecological function zone. This represents the average value of habitat quality changes across all counties within the key ecological function zones.

[0015] As a preferred option: the calculation process of the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones in step S3 is as follows: the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones in step S2 are respectively input into equation (3) to obtain the comparable protection effectiveness index across functional zones.

[0016] (3)

[0017] In the formula, This serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index across counties in key ecological function zones. It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. It is the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones.

[0018] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of this invention are as follows:

[0019] The method of this invention calculates the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones; calculates the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones; and calculates the comparable protection effectiveness index of all counties within key ecological function zones. This enables spatial comparative assessment of biodiversity conservation effectiveness within a single key ecological function zone and between counties in different key ecological function zones, further improving the regional comparative assessment methodology for protection effectiveness and thus providing a powerful tool for transfer payments to key ecological function zones. Attached Figure Description

[0020] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the method of the present invention;

[0021] Figure 2 This is a map showing the changes in habitat quality in the core area of ​​a nature reserve within a key ecological functional zone, as described in this embodiment of the invention. Detailed Implementation

[0022] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0023] Example

[0024] Please see Figure 1 The regional comparative assessment method for the protection effectiveness of counties in key national ecological function zones, as shown in the diagram, includes the following steps:

[0025] Step S1: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones. Select a reference area, obtain a habitat quality raster map using the InVEST model, confirm the reference benchmark index using the Zonal Statistical function in ArcGIS software, and calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones.

[0026] Step S2: Calculation of the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. First, calculate the change in habitat quality; second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality change; and finally, calculate the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones.

[0027] Step S3: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones. Based on the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in Step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones in Step S2, calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones.

[0028] In this embodiment, the specific process for calculating the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in step S1 is as follows: First, areas within the key ecological function zones that are less disturbed by humans are selected as reference areas. Second, the habitat quality of the key functional zones over a long period of time is obtained using the InVEST model. The raster map uses the Zonal Statistic function in ArcGIS software to statistically analyze the maximum value of habitat quality over a long time series in the reference area, which is then used as a benchmark index. The calculation of the comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones is shown in equation (1).

[0029] (1)

[0030] In the formula, It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. This refers to the habitat quality index for this functional area. As a reference benchmark index for this functional area, the calculation process of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological functional area in step S2 is as follows: First, calculate the change in habitat quality of counties within the key ecological functional area during the study period; second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality changes of all counties within the key ecological functional area. The calculation method of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological functional area is shown in equation (2).

[0031] (2)

[0032] In the formula, This refers to the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. This represents the maximum value of habitat quality changes across all counties within the key ecological function zone. The average value of habitat quality changes in all counties within the key ecological function zone is used. The calculation process of the comparable protection effectiveness index across counties in step S3 is as follows: input the comparable protection effectiveness index of the key ecological function zone in step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological function zone in step S2 into equation (3) to obtain the comparable protection effectiveness index across functional zones.

[0033] (3)

[0034] In the formula, This serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index across counties in key ecological function zones. It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. It is the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones.

[0035] Furthermore, to verify the effectiveness of the method proposed in this invention, firstly, the habitat quality of three national key ecological function zones—the Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet, the Wuling Mountains, and the Sanjiang Plain—was calculated using the InVEST habitat quality model from 1985 to 2024, and their average values ​​were statistically analyzed. Secondly, the core areas of national nature reserves within the key ecological function zones were selected as reference areas, and the average habitat quality of the reference areas in each function zone from 1985 to 2024 was statistically analyzed using the Zonal Statistic function in ArcGIS. Figure 2 As shown, the maximum values ​​were selected as the reference benchmarks RCI, which were 0.7423, 0.9883 and 0.6677 respectively. Finally, according to Formula 1, the habitat quality of the key ecological function zones in 2024 was divided by the corresponding reference benchmarks to obtain the comparable protection effectiveness indices of the key ecological function zones in the Qiangtang Plateau, Wuling Mountains and Sanjiang Plain in Northwest Tibet in 2024, which were 0.9712, 0.9954 and 0.4078 respectively.

[0036] Since the establishment year of the key ecological function zone is 2011, this embodiment calculates the relative habitat quality index of the county from 2011 to 2024. According to formula (2), the relative habitat quality index of the county within the key ecological function zones of the Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet, the Wuling Mountains and the Sanjiang Plain is calculated respectively. The calculation results are shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

[0037] Table 1. Relative Habitat Quality Index of Different Counties within the Key Ecological Function Zone of the Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet

[0038] County Name Relative Habitat Quality Index Rutog County 1.0000 Gaize County -0.2672 Nyima County -0.3345 Geji County -0.3983

[0039] Table 2. Relative Habitat Quality Index of Different Counties within the Key Ecological Function Zone of the Wuling Mountains

[0040] County Name Relative Habitat Quality Index Mayang Miao Autonomous County 1.0000 Fenghuang County 0.7858 Chenxi County 0.5691 Luxi County 0.5426 Xiushan Tujia and Miao Autonomous County 0.5229 Huayuan County 0.3838 Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County 0.1369 Baojing County 0.1248 Yongding District 0.1122 Wulingyuan District 0.0986 Shizhu Tujia Autonomous County -0.1117 Laifeng County -0.1229 Pengshui Miao and Tujia Autonomous County -0.1533 Lichuan City -0.1554 Guzhang County -0.1609 Longshan County -0.1786 Xuan'en County -0.2406 Cili County -0.2688 Hefeng County -0.3140 Yongshun County -0.3188 Sangzhi County -0.3678 Xianfeng County -0.3821 Wulong County -0.4525 Jianshi County -0.5086 Shimen County -0.5407

[0041] Table 3. Relative Habitat Quality Index of Different Counties within the Key Ecological Function Zone of the Sanjiang Plain

[0042] County Name Relative Habitat Quality Index Mishan City 1.0000 Fujin City 0.3131 Tongjiang City 0.2651 Hulin City 0.0816 Suibin County -0.1401 Raohe County -0.3519 Fuyuan County -1.1678

[0043] Furthermore, based on the above-calculated comparative protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones, the comparative protection effectiveness index of counties across key ecological function zones is calculated using equation (3). The calculation results are shown in Table 4.

[0044] Table 4 Comparable Protection Effectiveness Indices Across Key Ecological Function Zones at the County Level

[0045] County Name Functional area Comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones at the county level Mayang Miao Autonomous County Wuling Mountains 0.9954 Rutog County Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet 0.9712 Fenghuang County Wuling Mountains 0.7822 Chenxi County Wuling Mountains 0.5665 Luxi County Wuling Mountains 0.5401 Xiushan Tujia and Miao Autonomous County Wuling Mountains 0.5205 Mishan City Sanjiang Plain 0.4078 Huayuan County Wuling Mountains 0.3821 Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County Wuling Mountains 0.1363 Fujin City Sanjiang Plain 0.1277 Baojing County Wuling Mountains 0.1242 Yongding District Wuling Mountains 0.1117 Tongjiang City Sanjiang Plain 0.1081 Wulingyuan District Wuling Mountains 0.0982 Hulin City Sanjiang Plain 0.0333 Suibin County Sanjiang Plain -0.0571 Shizhu Tujia Autonomous County Wuling Mountains -0.1112 Laifeng County Wuling Mountains -0.1224 Raohe County Sanjiang Plain -0.1435 Pengshui Miao and Tujia Autonomous County Wuling Mountains -0.1526 Lichuan City Wuling Mountains -0.1547 Guzhang County Wuling Mountains -0.1602 Longshan County Wuling Mountains -0.1778 Xuan'en County Wuling Mountains -0.2395 Gaize County Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet -0.2595 Cili County Wuling Mountains -0.2676 Hefeng County Wuling Mountains -0.3126 Yongshun County Wuling Mountains -0.3174 Nyima County Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet -0.3249 Sangzhi County Wuling Mountains -0.3661 Xianfeng County Wuling Mountains -0.3804 Geji County Qiangtang Plateau in Northwest Tibet -0.3868 Wulong County Wuling Mountains -0.4504 Fuyuan County Sanjiang Plain -0.4763 Jianshi County Wuling Mountains -0.5063 Shimen County Wuling Mountains -0.5383

[0046] The calculation results show that from 2011 to 2024, Mayang Miao Autonomous County, located in the Wuling Mountains, had the best protection results, while Shimen County, also located in the Wuling Mountains, had the worst protection results.

[0047] Furthermore, to verify the rationality of the method of the present invention, the method of the present invention is compared with that of Dong et al. (Comparing the Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation across Different Regions at CountyScale, 2023). After calculating the conservation effectiveness index of each functional area, he directly calculated the average value of county-level conservation effectiveness using the Zonal Statistic function in ArcGIS.

[0048] As can be seen from Table 5, the method of this invention calculates that the best protection effect is in Mayang Miao Autonomous County (0.9954), and the worst is in Shimen County (-0.5383). Using the method of Dong et al. (2023), the best protection effect is in Nima County (0.1153), and the worst is in Fujin City (-0.4353). The order of protection effect of the other assessed counties is also inconsistent. This is mainly because when comparing counties across functional zones, it is necessary to consider not only the reference benchmark of the functional zone, but also the relative habitat quality of each county within the same functional zone. In other words, there is a ranking within the same functional zone before considering the differences in ecological background. However, the method of Dong et al. (2023) does not consider the differences in relative habitat quality of counties within the functional zone, which leads to bias.

[0049] Table 5 Direct Statistics of County-Level Protection Effectiveness Index

[0050] NAME County-level protection effectiveness index by Dong et al. (2023) Functional area Nyima County 0.1153 Key ecological function zones in northwestern Tibet Geji County 0.0822 Key ecological function zones in northwestern Tibet Gaize County -0.0146 Key ecological function zones in northwestern Tibet Hefeng County -0.0510 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Wulingyuan District -0.0732 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Guzhang County -0.0742 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Xuan'en County -0.0767 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Rutog County -0.0869 Key ecological function zones in northwestern Tibet Raohe County -0.0938 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Sangzhi County -0.1177 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Xianfeng County -0.1177 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Longshan County -0.1276 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Baojing County -0.1302 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Lichuan City -0.1323 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Yongshun County -0.1340 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Luxi County -0.1360 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Jianshi County -0.1392 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Shizhu Tujia Autonomous County -0.1393 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County -0.1413 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Yongding District -0.1662 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Laifeng County -0.1701 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Wulong County -0.1852 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Shimen County -0.1871 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Fenghuang County -0.1889 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Chenxi County -0.1937 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Cili County -0.1972 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Xiushan Tujia and Miao Autonomous County -0.2008 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Mishan City -0.2079 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Mayang Miao Autonomous County -0.2163 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Hulin City -0.2188 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Pengshui Miao and Tujia Autonomous County -0.2287 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Huayuan County -0.2588 Wuling Mountain Key Ecological Function Zone Tongjiang City -0.3837 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Fuyuan County -0.3870 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Suibin County -0.4076 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone Fujin City -0.4353 Sanjiang Plain Key Ecological Function Zone

[0051] This embodiment compares the conservation effectiveness of counties within key ecological function zones and counties across function zones. It can be directly applied to transfer payments, thereby incentivizing relevant departments to improve biodiversity.

[0052] It should be noted that, in this invention, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used merely to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus.

[0053] Although embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and alterations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for regional comparative evaluation of protection effectiveness in counties within national key ecological function zones, characterized by: Includes the following steps: Step S1: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones. Select a reference area, obtain a habitat quality raster map using the InVEST model, confirm the reference benchmark index using the Zonal Statistical function in ArcGIS software, and calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones. Step S2: Calculation of the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. First, calculate the change in habitat quality; second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality change; and finally, calculate the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. Step S3: Calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones. Based on the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in Step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones in Step S2, calculate the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones.

2. The method for regional comparative evaluation of protection effectiveness in counties of key national ecological function zones according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific process for calculating the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in step S1 is as follows: First, areas within the key ecological function zones that are less disturbed by humans are selected as reference areas. Second, the habitat quality of the key function zones over a long period of time is obtained using the InVEST model. The raster map uses the Zonal Statistic function in ArcGIS software to statistically analyze the maximum value of habitat quality over a long time series in the reference area, which is then used as a benchmark index. The calculation of the comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones is shown in equation (1). （1）， In the formula, It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. This refers to the habitat quality index for this functional area. This serves as the benchmark index for this functional area.

3. The method for regional comparative evaluation of protection effectiveness in counties of key national ecological function zones as described in claim 2, characterized in that: The calculation process of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological function zone in step S2 is as follows: First, calculate the change in habitat quality of counties within the key ecological function zone during the study period. Second, calculate the maximum and average values ​​of habitat quality changes in all counties within the key ecological function zone. The calculation method of the relative habitat quality index of counties within the key ecological function zone is shown in equation (2). （2）， In the formula, This refers to the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones. This represents the maximum value of habitat quality changes across all counties within the key ecological function zone. This represents the average value of habitat quality changes across all counties within the key ecological function zones.

4. The method for regional comparative evaluation of protection effectiveness in counties of key national ecological function zones as described in claim 3, characterized in that: The calculation process of the comparable protection effectiveness index across key ecological function zones in step S3 is as follows: the comparable protection effectiveness index of key ecological function zones in step S1 and the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones in step S2 are respectively input into equation (3) to obtain the comparable protection effectiveness index across functional zones. （3）， In the formula, This serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index across counties in key ecological function zones. It serves as a comparable protection effectiveness index for key ecological function zones. It is the relative habitat quality index of counties within key ecological function zones.

Images