生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

自然保护地管理成效评估研究进展及展望

胡宇蝶, 张晶晶, 唐军, 史雪威, 杨泉峰, 赵磊   

  1. 北京林业大学生态与自然保护学院, 100083
    中国科学院生态环境研究中心区域与城市生态安全全国重点实验室, 100085
    生态环境部卫星环境应用中心, 100094
    北京林业大学草业与草原学院, 100083
  • 收稿日期:2026-05-06 修回日期:2026-07-30 接受日期:2026-08-28
  • 通讯作者: 张晶晶

Research progress and prospects of management effectiveness evaluation for protected areas

Yudie Hu, Jingjing Zhang, Jun Tang, Xuewei Shi, Quanfeng Yang, Lei Zhao   

  1. , School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University 100083,
    , State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences 100085,
    , Satellite Application Center for Ecology and Environment 100094,
    , School of Grassland Science, Beijing Forestry University 100083,
  • Received:2026-05-06 Revised:2026-07-30 Accepted:2026-08-28
  • Contact: Jingjing Zhang
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the National Science Foundation of China(32571930); Supported by the National Science Foundation of China(32101400)

摘要: 为优化我国以国家公园为主体的新型自然保护地体系管理,助力全球“3030”重点区域保护目标,本文在辨析相关概念的基础上,系统综述了国内外主要自然保护地管理成效评估方法及评估结果。研究进展表明:评估框架已形成国际通用范式与中国本土化探索并行发展的格局;评估工具日趋多元,但新体系下自然公园评估方法仍显缺失;现有评估指标普遍重视基础保障、管理过程、保护成效和负面影响,对各类保护地的差异化定位响应不足。国内评估显示,国家公园和国家级自然保护区管理水平较高,但省级自然保护区与自然公园的评估覆盖度与研究深度亟待加强,难以满足新时期精细化管理需求;管理成效受保护地自然属性、社会经济条件及管理指标等多重因素驱动,但其耦合作用机制尚未明晰。展望未来,应构建“核心指标统一、弹性指标适配”的模块化评估体系;深化各级各类保护地实证研究,搭建分级统筹、周期实施评估机制与全国评估数据共享平台;强化管理成效的多因素驱动机制解析,推动指标体系与政策法律法规及技术标准的动态衔接,以系统提升我国自然保护地的综合管理效能。

关键词: 自然保护地, 管理成效, 评估框架, 方法指标

Abstract

Background & Aim: To optimize the management of China’s new protected area system with national parks as the mainstay and to support the Global "30 by 30" Target for priority area conservation. This study systematically reviews mainstream domestic and international methodologies for evaluating the management effectiveness of protected areas, as well as the current status of assessments within China. 

Progress: The assessment framework has evolved into a pattern of parallel progression between internationally accepted paradigms and localized Chinese explorations; Assessment tools have become increasingly diverse, yet methods specifically targeting nature parks under the new system remain underdeveloped; While existing indicators generally emphasize foundational safeguards, management processes, conservation outcomes, and negative impacts, they lack sufficient responsiveness to the differentiated positioning of various protected areas categories. Domestic assessments reveal high management standards in national parks and national-level nature reserves, whereas the coverage and research depth for provincial-level nature reserves and nature parks require urgent enhancement to meet the demands of refined management in the new era; and management effectiveness is driven by multiple factors—including natural attributes, socio-economic conditions, and management indicators—although their coupled mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. 

Perspectives: It is imperative to construct a modular assessment system characterized by "unified core indicators and adaptive flexible indicators," expand empirical research on all types and levels of protected areas, and build a tiered-coordinated, periodically implemented assessment mechanism and a national shared platform for assessment data. Furthermore, future efforts should strengthen the analysis of multi-factor driving mechanisms behind management effectiveness and promote the dynamic alignment of indicator systems with laws, policies, regulations, and technical standards. These steps are crucial for systematically enhancing the comprehensive management efficacy of China’s protected areas.

Key words: protected areas, management effectiveness evaluation, valuation frameworks, evaluation methods and indicators