| Literature DB >> 35328949 |
Jin Huang1, Hao Yang2, Wei He2, Yu Li2.
Abstract
Wetlands as an important ecosystem type have been damaged in recent years and restoration of wetland ecosystem functions through ecological water replenishment is one of the important ways. The present study involved the construction of a novel ecological water replenishment model for Jilin Momoge National Nature Reserve (JMNNR) using the interval two-stage stochastic programming (ITSP) method. Breaking down traditional economic models that often sacrifice environmental benefits, the model aims to replenish the ecological water in JMNNR, allocate the ecological water resources scientifically, restore the wetland function of the reserve, improve the functional area of the reserve, enhance the net carbon sequestration capacity of the reserve, and complete the reconstruction of the ecosystem, while considering the ecological service value (ESV) of the reserve to achieve a joint increase in the ecological and economic benefits. The ITSP model constructed in the present study overcame the limitation that the original project recommendation was a single recommended value, and the results are presented in the form of intervals to improve flexibility in decision making to allow the individuals responsible for under-taking decisions to bring focused adjustments according to the actual decision-making conditions and increase the selectivity of the decision-making scheme. The present report discusses the construction of an ITSP model for the ecological water replenishment of JMNNR in an attempt to effectively improve both economic benefits and ecosystem restoration of the reserve, achieve the reconstruction of the JMNNR ecosystem, and provide a selective decision space for the key decision-makers to formulate and optimize the project operation and the management plan. The use of the ITSP model as a pre-procedural basis for the implementation of the project and the simulation of the effects of the implementation of the project can effectively avoid the decision limitations that exist when carrying out the project directly. The ITSP model constructed in this paper can also be used as a theoretical guide for water replenishment projects in different areas of the world, and the model parameters can be reasonably adjusted to achieve better results when used according to the actual local conditions.Entities:
Keywords: carbon sink; ecological service value; ecological water replenishment; ecosystem function restoration; interval two-stage stochastic programming (ITSP) method
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328949 PMCID: PMC8954108 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The geographical location of Jilin Momoge National Nature Reserve.
Estimated ESV of JMNNR under the ecological service function system (×106 yuan).
| Ecological Service Function System | Project Recommendation | ITSP Model Optimization Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish | 78.88 | (63.10, 90.71) | (63.10, 90.71) | (63.10, 99.91) |
| Crab | 234.96 | (187.97, 270.20) | (187.97, 270.20) | (187.97, 286.65) |
| Reeds | 22.32 | (23.56, 41.73) | (24.78, 41.73) | (24.98, 39.32) |
| Scirpus triqueter | 27.00 | (21.60, 36.69) | (24.78, 44.12) | (29.77, 48.37) |
| Water supply | 125.56 | (100.45, 144.40) | (100.45, 144.40) | (100.45, 155.14) |
| Vegetation carbon sequestration | 6.92 | (6.85, 12.02) | (7.34, 12.51) | (7.71, 12.24) |
| Oxygen release | 63.73 | (63.11, 110.83) | (67.62, 115.31) | (71.06, 112.75) |
| Food storage | 412.82 | (338.88, 515.08) | (349.78, 536.25) | (364.31, 570.58) |
| Cooling and humidifying | 307.77 | (268.82, 459.72) | (297.40, 515.23) | (335.51, 538.93) |
| Plant adsorption | 308.42 | (270.77, 467.14) | (301.15, 526.16) | (341.67, 549.75) |
| Pollution absorption capacity | 446.52 | (392.00, 676.30) | (435.99, 761.75) | (494.65, 795.90) |
| Biological Habitat | 76.51 | (65.46, 107.89) | (70.84, 118.33) | (78.01, 124.38) |
| Conservation of rare waterfowl | 307.07 | (262.72, 433.00) | (284.30, 474.92) | (313.08, 499.20) |
| Soil conservation | 265.15 | (229.90, 388.13) | (252.38, 431.80) | (282.36, 452.41) |
| Nutrient circulation | 20.75 | (17.99, 30.40) | (19.76, 33.84) | (22.12, 35.45) |
| Research and education | 15.92 | (13.62, 22.45) | (14.74, 24.62) | (16.23, 25.88) |
| Leisure and tourism | 114.51 | (97.97, 161.47) | (106.02, 177.10) | (116.75, 186.16) |
| Cityscape | 62.65 | (53.60, 88.34) | (58.00, 96.89) | (63.87, 101.84) |
| Natural landscapes | 25.16 | (21.53, 35.48) | (23.30, 38.91) | (25.65, 40.90) |
Figure 2Change in the ESV based on the ITSP model in JMNNR compared to the project recommendation. (a) Upper limit of the change in ESV from the project recommendation. (b) Lower limit of the change in ESV from the project recommendation.
Changes in the functional area of each lake in the nature reserve prior to and after the ITSP model optimization (×104 hm2).
| Lake | Project Recommendation | ITSP Model OPTIMIZATION Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuanbaotupao | 3.58 | (4.28, 5.58) | (3.93, 5.58) | (4.93, 5.58) |
| Wulanzhaopao | 1.74 | (2.43, 2.65) | (1.80, 2.54) | (2.41, 2.69) |
| Momogepao | 3.29 | (3.38, 5.13) | (3.81, 5.13) | (3.81, 5.13) |
| Etoupao | 3.80 | (4.57, 5.79) | (5.02, 5.86) | (5.37, 5.93) |
| Taipingshanpao | 1.26 | (1.23, 1.56) | (1.44, 1.96) | (1.47, 1.96) |
| Datunpao | 1.13 | (1.42, 1.57) | (1.33, 1.57) | (1.41, 1.57) |
| Gaomianpao | 3.79 | (3.03, 5.89) | (3.80, 5.91) | (3.42, 5.91) |
| Huoshaopao | 0.48 | (0.69, 0.75) | (0.69, 0.98) | (0.90, 0.98) |
| Wobupao | 0.92 | (1.02, 1.44) | (1.31, 1.44) | (1.23, 1.44) |
| Zhushanpao | 11.71 | (7.04, 9.92) | (7.64, 12.37) | (8.79, 13.82) |
| Houbutaipao | 3.79 | (3.36, 4.64) | (3.92, 4.64) | (3.92, 4.79) |
| Shaolipao | 2.09 | (1.49, 1.86) | (1.60, 1.84) | (1.73, 1.87) |
| Haernaopao | 10.28 | (6.39, 9.27) | (7.54, 12.11) | (9.72, 13.23) |
| Wujiazi Reservoir | 0.36 | (0.51, 0.56) | (0.51, 0.40) | (0.45, 0.56) |
| Qunying Reservoir | 1.20 | (1.64, 1.81) | (1.64, 1.81) | (1.23, 1.81) |
| Yinghoutaipao | 0.20 | (0.27, 0.29) | (0.25, 0.19) | (0.13, 0.29) |
| Nashitupao | 1.00 | (0.82, 1.14) | (0.82, 1.38) | (0.89, 1.41) |
| Baoshanpao | 0.73 | (0.36, 0.47) | (0.47, 0.47) | (0.54, 0.61) |
Figure 3Changes in the respective areas of different functional areas of the lake in the protected area prior to and after model optimization compared to the project recommendation.
NSC in each lake in JMNNR (104 t).
| Lake | Project Recommendation | ITSP Model Optimization Results | Rate of Change | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuanbaotupao | 3104.47 | (2483.58, 6033.06) | (3995.45, 6033.06) | (3947.37, 6033.06) | (11.95%, 94.33%) |
| Wulanzhaopao | 1517.56 | (2099.06, 3369.02) | (1233.13, 3224.13) | (2230.14, 3414.51) | (22.18%, 119.82%) |
| Momogepao | 2844.29 | (2275.43, 5546.37) | (2534.16, 5472.72) | (2534.16, 5472.72) | (−13.94%, 93.27%) |
| Etoupao | 3301.04 | (4836.73, 7331.59) | (4625.40, 7427.34) | (2673.37, 3827.86) | (22.54%, 87.69%) |
| Taipingshanpao | 1091.18 | (872.94, 2056.01) | (927.09, 2127.80) | (1191.69, 2127.80) | (−8.61%, 92.81%) |
| Datunpao | 988.59 | (820.70, 909.50) | (820.70, 909.50) | (831.73, 909.50) | (−16.61%, −8.00%) |
| Gaomianpao | 3273.54 | (2618.83, 6298.56) | (3411.57, 6298.56) | (3592.81, 6298.56) | (−2.01%, 92.41%) |
| Huoshaopao | 426.38 | (717.60, 1073.22) | (717.60, 1073.22) | (717.60, 1073.22) | (68.30%, 151.70%) |
| Wobupao | 794.89 | (1023.02, 1529.44) | (1019.34, 1529.44) | (1022.46, 1529.44) | (28.52%, 92.41%) |
| Zhushanpao | 9249.17 | (7399.34, 14,633.72) | (7399.34, 15,742.08) | (8470.54, 16,240.82) | (−16.14%, 68.00%) |
| Houbutaipao | 2073.14 | (1658.51, 3542.77) | (1804.90, 3542.77) | (1971.04, 3731.65) | (−12.62%, 73.93%) |
| Shaolipao | 1145.5 | (916.40, 1786.87) | (943.91, 1759.76) | (1069.05, 1795.04) | (−14.76%, 55.44%) |
| Haernaopao | 6461.45 | (5291.13, 10,433.41) | (5716.78, 11,409.77) | (6280.53, 11,630.61) | (−10.81%, 72.68%) |
| Wujiazi Reservoir | 153.05 | (122.44, 390.28) | (122.44, 390.28) | (200.14, 390.28) | (−3.08%, 155.00%) |
| Qunying Reservoir | 141.57 | (113.26, 297.30) | (187.30, 297.30) | (187.30, 297.30) | (14.87%, 110.00%) |
| Yinghoutaipao | 11.48 | (19.32, 29.27) | (9.18, 29.27) | (9.18, 29.27) | (9.43%, 155.00%) |
| Nashitupao | 580.37 | (480.42, 1039.50) | (564.12, 1044.67) | (564.12, 1044.67) | (−7.61%, 79.70%) |
| Baoshanpao | 842.22 | (673.78, 1012.51) | (673.78, 1012.51) | (673.78, 1309.48) | (−20.00%, 31.97%) |