生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

自然保护地和生态保护红线区生物多样性与气候变化风险源的协同治理

华方圆1*, 刘双祺1, 彭杨靖2, 龚善星1, 申小莉3, 金崑2*   

  1. 1 北京大学城市与环境学院生态研究中心, 北京 100871; 2 中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与自然保护研究所, 北京 100091; 3 中国科学院植物研究所, 北京 100093
  • 收稿日期:2025-12-10 修回日期:2026-02-16 接受日期:2026-04-08
  • 通讯作者: 华方圆

Synergistically addressing the risk sources of biodiversity loss and climate change in protected areas and ecological conservation redlines

Fangyuan Hua1*, Shuangqi Liu1, Yangjing Peng2, Shanxing Gong1, Xiaoli Shen3, Kun Jin2*   

  1. 1 Institute of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 

    2 Ecology and Nature Conservation Institute, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China 

    3 Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China

  • Received:2025-12-10 Revised:2026-02-16 Accepted:2026-04-08
  • Contact: Fangyuan Hua, Kun Jin

摘要: 生物多样性丧失与气候变化是当前全球面临的两大环境挑战, 且两者之间存在紧密联系, 迫切需要通过基于自然的解决方案(nature-based solutions, NbS)协同应对。作为我国开展生态保护工作、实现“30×30”目标的重要空间单元, 自然保护地和生态保护红线区在这两大危机的协同治理方面具有重要潜力, 但其当前的管理与规划体系在此方面的设计仍显薄弱。本文基于适应性管理理念, 构建了一个“风险源识别–治理–成效评估”的闭环框架, 以NbS为路径实现生物多样性与气候变化风险源的协同治理。具体而言, 该框架将风险源划分为4类: (1)导致自然生态系统丧失与退化的因素; (2)阻碍生态系统恢复的因素; (3)不可持续的生产管理方式; (4)关键地块有效保护的缺失, 并提出从生态系统保护、恢复、可持续管理及空间格局优化4条路径来开展协同治理。该框架为在全球变化背景下提升自然保护地和生态保护红线区的协同治理长期成效提供了方法支撑, 有望助力我国对《生物多样性公约》和《联合国气候变化框架公约》的协同履约。

关键词: 生物多样性, 气候变化, 自然保护地, 生态保护红线区, 基于自然的解决方案(NbS)

Abstract

Background: Biodiversity loss and climate change constitute two of the most pressing global environmental challenges, characterized by tightly coupled drivers and reinforcing feedbacks, and therefore demand synergistic responses grounded in nature-based solutions (NbS). In China, protected areas and ecological conservation redlines possess substantial potential for synergistically addressing the risk sources of biodiversity loss and climate change, especially under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the push toward the “30×30” target. However, the existing management and planning systems remain insufficiently articulated to support such practices, highlighting an urgent need for more concrete, operational guidelines and integrated tools. 

Results: This study proposes an innovative framework based on the concept of adaptive management, establishing a closed-loop process of “risk-source identification–synergistically addressing–effectiveness evaluation.” This framework identified four categories of biodiversity loss and climate change risk sources: (1) factors causing loss and degradation of natural ecosystems; (2) factors impeding ecosystem recovery; (3) unsustainable production and management practices; and (4) lack of effective protection for key sites. Correspondingly, four specific NbS pathways were proposed to address these risk sources: protecting natural ecosystems, restoring degraded ecosystems, sustainably managing human-dominated production landscapes, and optimizing the spatial pattern of protected area and ecological conservation redline networks. 

Prospects: The effective implementation of this framework hinges on addressing two critical prerequisites: institutional coordination for cross-jurisdictional landscape planning and capacity building for local managers. With these enabling conditions in place, the framework can equip policymakers and practitioners to synergistically achieve biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and climate adaptation. Looking ahead, our framework has the potential to support China’s coordinated implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, while offering valuable insights for the international community.

Key words: biodiversity, climate change, protected areas, Ecological Conservation Redlines, nature-based solutions