使用科学合理的模型来评估生态环境质量并揭示生态系统的优缺点至关重要。这一过程对于确定区域生态和环境问题以及制定相关的保护措施至关重要。在广泛认可的生态质量评价模型中,生态指数(EI)和遥感生态指数(RSEI)脱颖而出;然而,在讨论它们的差异的文献中存在明显的差距,特点,以及选择这两种模式的原因。在这项研究中,我们专注于房山区,北京,中国,考察2017年至2021年两种模式之间的差异。我们总结了评价指标的变化,重要性,定量方法,和数据采集时间,为这两种模型提出应用场景。结果表明,房山区生态环境质量,北京,从2017年到2021年保持有利。有一个明显的趋势,即最初的质量下降,然后是随后的改进。计算结果的变化在RSEI和EI之间的总体相关性中是明显的。特别值得注意的是,2021年EI和RSEI之间的相关性明显小于其他两年。这种差异归因于RSEI模型中评估指标贡献的变化。使用各种定量方法评估指标导致了几种差异。值得注意的是,EI模型的评价结果与土地覆盖类型具有更强的相关性。这种相关性导致2017年至2021年RSEI水平波动更加明显,2019年EI模型的评估结果明显超过RSEI模型。最终,最突出的差异在于水域和建设用地的计算结果。水域的实质性差异归因于两种模型之间对评估指标的不同重要性。此外,建设用地的显著差异源于对评价指标采用不同的量化方法。总的来说,EI模型建议更全面,有效地捕获生态环境的年度综合状况和行政区域的多年变化特征。另一方面,RSEI模型表现出更大的灵活性和易于实施,独立于空间和时间尺度。这些发现有助于更清楚地了解模型的优点和局限性,为决策者提供指导,为生态环境质量评价模型的改进和发展提供有价值的见解。
It is crucial to employ scientifically sound models for assessing the quality of the ecological environment and revealing the strengths and weaknesses of ecosystems. This process is vital for identifying regional ecological and environmental issues and devising relevant protective measures. Among the widely acknowledged models for evaluating ecological quality, the ecological index (EI) and remote sensing ecological index (RSEI) stand out; however, there is a notable gap in the literature discussing their differences, characteristics, and reasons for selecting either model. In this study, we focused on Fangshan District, Beijing, China, to examine the differences between the two models from 2017 to 2021. We summarized the variations in evaluation indices, importance, quantitative methods, and data acquisition times, proposing application scenarios for both models. The results indicate that the ecological environment quality in Fangshan District, Beijing, remained favorable from 2017 to 2021. There was a discernible trend of initially declining quality followed by subsequent improvement. The variation in the calculation results is evident in the overall correlation between the RSEI and EI. Particularly noteworthy is the significantly smaller correlation between EI and the RSEI in 2021 than in the other two years. This discrepancy is attributed to shifts in the contribution of the evaluation indices within the RSEI model. The use of diverse quantitative methods for evaluating indicators has resulted in several variations. Notably, the evaluation outcomes of the EI model exhibit a stronger correlation with land cover types. This correlation contributes to a more pronounced fluctuation in RSEI levels from 2017 to 2021, with the EI model\'s evaluation results in 2019 notably surpassing those of the RSEI model. Ultimately, the most prominent disparities lie in the calculation results for water areas and construction land. The substantial difference in water areas is attributed to the distinct importance assigned to evaluation indicators between the two models. Moreover, the notable difference in construction land arises from the use of different quantification methods for evaluation indicators. In general, the EI model has suggested to be more comprehensive and effectively captures the annual comprehensive status of the ecological environment and the multiyear change characteristics of the administrative region. On the other hand, RSEI models exhibit greater flexibility and ease of implementation, independent of spatial and temporal scales. These findings contribute to a clearer understanding of the models\' advantages and limitations, offering guidance for decision makers and valuable insights for the improvement and development of ecological environmental quality evaluation models.