城市生物多样性保护是全球生物多样性保护体系的重要组成部分, 也是城市可持续发展的重要内容。通过对比中国和欧洲城市生物多样性保护实践, 有助于完善中国城市生物多样性保护措施。首先, 从城市发展和生态系统协同治理的视角出发, 基于城市生物多样性保护的核心载体和功能, 聚焦生境保护、空间规制和协同治理等实现路径, 提出城市生物多样性保护的理论框架。然后, 系统梳理、总结和对比中国与欧洲的城市生物多样性保护实践, 发现中国城市生物多样性保护工作理念鲜明、治理效果明显, 但仍然存在改进空间。在城市发展规划方面, 欧洲城市生物多样性规划体系全面系统、针对性强, 而中国城市生物多样性保护与城市发展规划融合不足, 建议加强二者的有效衔接; 在城市绿地建设方面, 欧洲城市日益重视生态系统的连通性和完整性, 而中国城市仍以公园等传统绿地建设为主, 应提升微观尺度绿地空间利用和生态系统营造; 在生态保护补偿方面, 欧洲城市在多元化、市场化补偿方面探索较多, 而中国的城市生物多样性保护补偿机制尚不成熟, 建议逐步探索绿色基金等多元化补偿方式; 在公众参与方面, 欧洲城市强调自下而上的生物多样性保护公众参与机制, 而中国仍以政府为治理主体, 公众参与意识和参与能力有待提高。

Aims: Urban biodiversity conservation is a vital component of the global conservation system and an essential element for sustainable urban development. Comparing the practices of urban biodiversity conservation in China and Europe is helpful to improve the measures of urban biodiversity conservation in China. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of urban biodiversity conservation practices in China and Europe, aiming to offer insights for enhancing urban ecosystems and biodiversity conservation..
Methods: We propose a theoretical framework for urban biodiversity conservation from the perspective of urban development and collaborative governance of ecosystems. The framework is based on the core carriers and functions of urban biodiversity conservation, and it emphasizes the implementation strategies for habitat conservation, spatial regulation, and collaborative governance.
Results and Suggestions: China’s urban biodiversity conservation exhibits unique concepts and significant governance effects, however, there is still room for improvement. (1) Regarding urban development planning, the European urban biodiversity planning system is comprehensive, systematic, and targeted. In contrast, the integration of urban biodiversity conservation and urban development planning in China is inadequate. Thus, it is recommended to enhance the effective connection between these two aspects. (2) Regarding urban green space construction, European cities are increasingly emphasizing the connectivity and integrity of ecosystems. In contrast, Chinese cities primarily concentrate on building traditional green spaces like parks and should enhance the utilization of green space and promote ecosystem creation at the microscopic scale. (3) Regarding ecological protection compensation, European cities have made significant progress in diversified and market-based compensation. However, China’s urban biodiversity protection compensation mechanism is not yet fully developed and requires gradual exploration of diversified compensation methods, such as the implementation of green funds. (4) Regarding public participation, European cities prioritize bottom-up mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, whereas China primarily relies on government-led governance, indicating the need for enhancing public awareness and participation capabilities.