隨著永續發展意義漸漸被世人接受,人們對於生態提供之效益越來越重視,而漸漸發展出了生態服務概念。生態服務係指生態系所提供人類之效益如木材、土壤沖蝕之減緩、水資源及空氣淨化。本研究中主題為台大實驗林2014-2034二十年經理期之下應用疏伐探討人工林六項生態服務目標產出與變化,目標包含疏伐材收穫、碳貯存量、土壤沖蝕量、地表逕流量、二氧化硫吸收量及生物多樣性。並藉由多目標規劃法模擬三種方案之下生態服務產出以利了解其之間變化及相關性。 研究結果顯示在多目標規劃法方法中,三階複選目標規劃法不僅能包含傳統多目標規劃法之解,更能藉由各次規劃之理想解探討各項生態服務之間的抵換關係,研究認為三階複選目標規劃法為較適合探討多項目標關係之方法。 運用三階複選目標規劃法後討論各項目標間關係後,其結果發現疏伐材收穫與碳貯存量與其餘多數目標中關係深遠且較有影響力。另一方面,疏伐材收穫對於土壤沖蝕及地表逕流量為同向變動,但若疏伐材固定之下,碳貯存對於土壤沖蝕和地表逕流為反向關係,二氧化硫吸收與生物多樣性則未有明確的變動方向。其次,疏伐面積範圍與預算之大小對碳貯存量與土壤沖蝕量較無影響力,但對於疏伐材收穫量、地表逕流量與二氧化硫吸收量影響較大。最後,經由三情境方案模擬與分析,本研究認為經營者採取介於積極與保守之間的中庸經營態度為較適當之方案。
As the concept of sustainable development goes on, people show high regard to the importance of ecosystem services gradually. Ecosystem services as “benefits people derive from ecosystems”, such as woods, prevention of soil erosion, water and purification. In this study, we aim to six ecosystem services to explore the relationship and trade-off among thinned wood harvest, carbon storage, soil erosion, surface runoff, sulfur dioxide absorbing and biodiversity in the planted forest of National Taiwan University Experimental Forest . This study applies multiple objectives programming(MOP)to explore ecosystem services through forest thinning based on simulating three schemes to provide reference for forest managers. The research indicates that compared to traditional MOP, 3-level multi-choice goal programming (3-level MCGP) is a more appropriate tool to analyze the relationship of multiple objectives. The results show that the change of thinned wood harvest, soil erosion and surface runoff in accordance with the same direction. On the contrary, biodiversity has reserve change with thinned wood harvest. In addition, thinned wood harvest enhances carbon storage, but sometimes it also can maintain the carbon storage in the same output level. With fixed thinned wood harvest, there is reverse change for carbon storage to soil erosion and surface runoff. On the other hand, the changes of Sulfur dioxide absorbing and biodiversity have uncertain direction. Moreover, the limits of thinning budget and area have great influence on the output of thinned wood harvest, surface runoff and sulfur dioxide absorbing but not for carbon storage, soil erosion and biodiversity. Finally, this study suggests a neutral scheme should be more appropriate than aggressive and conservative schemes after analyzing all of them.