基于耦合效应的林业碳汇项目风险

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20220517

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: Based on the perspective of the risk coupling effect of forestry carbon sink projects, the risk level was measured and evaluated in this study, in order to provide decision-making reference for the risk supervision of project operators and government departments. Method: A questionnaire of 113 forestry carbon sink experts from different fields was conducted on the risk categories, risk occurrence probability and influence degree of forestry carbon sink projects. Firstly, the project risks were classified concretely, and the project risk list was formed, including 4 risk subsystems such as nature, technology, market and policy, with a total of 22 risk factors. Then, according to the literature and combined with the characteristics of forestry carbon sink project, the coupling relationship between risk factors within and among risk subsystems of forestry carbon sequestration projects was analyzed in detail. A system dynamics model for risk assessment of forestry carbon sequestration projects was constructed on the basis of risk coupling diagram and risk stock-flow diagram. All parameters of system dynamics operation were obtained, and VENSIM software was used to measure and evaluate the overall risk level and coupling effect of the project by scenario simulation method. Result: 1) The coupling effect had a significant impact on the risk assessment result of forestry carbon sink projects, and the intensity of homogeneous coupling effect iwasgreater than heterogeneous coupling effect. When both homogeneous coupling and heterogeneous coupling effects were considered, the overall risk level of forestry carbon sink projects was 6.784, and the risk level is III. However, when both homogeneous coupling effect and heterogeneous coupling effect were not considered, only heterogeneous coupling effect or homogeneous coupling effect was considered, the overall risk level of forestry carbon sink projects decreased to 0.355, 0.929 and 3.102 respectively, and the risk levels changed to I, I and II respectively. 2) The coupling effects of different risk subsystems were obviously different. Specifically, under three different scenarios, in which only homogeneous coupling effect, heterogeneous coupling effect and two coupling effects were considered simultaneously, the order of coupling effect of each risk subsystem was market risk > policy risk > technology risk > natural risk. 3) Only considering the homogeneous coupling scenario, the coupling effect of "carbon sink price change and carbon market supply change" was the strongest. Only considering the heterogeneous coupling effect, the coupling effect of "the change of national emission reduction policy and the change of carbon market supply" was the strongest. Considering the two coupling effects at the same time, the coupling effect of "the change of national emission reduction policy and the change of carbon market supply" was the strongest. 4) In terms of risk level and coupling effect, the market and policy risks were relatively large, while the technical and natural risks were relatively small, but the heterogeneous coupling effect can gradually enlarge the overall risk of the project. Conclusion: In the risk supervision of forestry carbon sink projects, we should not only pay attention to the risk level itself, but also attach importance to the coupling effect between risks, and guard against the evolution between risks and the rise of the overall risk level from the source.

Key words: forestry carbon sink project, coupling effect, risk, system dynamics

CLC Number:

S7-9
F322

Feng Lu,Guangtong Gu,Xianlei Cao,Weiguang Wu. Risk of Forestry Carbon Sink Project Based on Coupling Effect[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58(5): 161-176.

Figures/Tables 18

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 3

Risk weight parameter of forestry carbon sink project"

风险子系统 Risk subsystem R_i	风险因子 Risk factor R_ij	均分 Mean score	绝对权重 Absolute weight ω_{R_ij}^*	相对权重 Relative weight ω_{R_ij}
自然风险 ω_R₁^=0.286 Natural risk R₁ ω_R₁^=0.286	干旱灾害 Drought R₁₁	1.602	0.033	0.116
	洪涝灾害 Flood R₁₂	1.602	0.033	0.116
	森林病害 Forest disease R₁₃	1.991	0.041	0.144
	森林虫害 Forest pest R₁₄	1.991	0.041	0.144
	大风灾害 Windstorm R₁₅	1.558	0.032	0.112
	森林火灾 Forest fire R₁₆	2.133	0.044	0.154
	冰雪灾害 Ice and snow R₁₇	1.558	0.032	0.112
	地质灾害 Geological hazard R₁₈	1.434	0.030	0.103
技术风险 ω_R₂^=0.172 Technical risk R₂ ω_R₂^=0.172	项目未能获得备案 The project was not filed R₂₁	2.168	0.045	0.263
	项目参与者未按作业设计实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation design R₂₂	1.973	0.041	0.239
	项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃	1.920	0.040	0.233
	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄	2.195	0.046	0.266
市场风险 ω_R₃^=0.322 Market risk R₃ ω_R₃^=0.322	利率变动 Interest rate changed R₃₁	2.611	0.054	0.168
	林地租金变动 Forest land rent changed R₃₂	2.761	0.057	0.178
	劳动力价格变动 Labor price changed R₃₃	3.027	0.063	0.195
	碳汇价格变动 Carbon sink price changed R₃₄	2.460	0.051	0.158
	木材价格变动 Timber price changed R₃₅	2.212	0.046	0.142
	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆	2.469	0.051	0.159
政策风险 ω_R₄^=0.217 Policy risk R₄ ω_R₄^=0.217	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁	2.743	0.057	0.264
	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂	2.628	0.055	0.253
	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃	2.407	0.050	0.231
	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄	2.628	0.055	0.253

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

References 0

	曹先磊, 张颖. 落叶松碳汇造林项目CCER开发成本动态核算研究. 统计与信息论坛, 2019, 34 (3): 43- 49.
	Cao X L , Zhang Y . Dynamic accounting on the costs of China certified emission reduction issued by Larix gmelinii (Rupr.) Kuzen. afforestation and reforestation project. Statistics & Information forum, 2019, 34 (3): 43- 49.
	冯帅. 应对气候变化能力建设行动的国际进展与中国策略—以前《巴黎协定》时期为中心. 中国科技论坛, 2017, (5): 174- 179.
	Feng S . International developments of capacity-building action for response to climate change and China's countermeasures—Taking the period of Paris Agreement's Preimplementation for example. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 2017, (5): 174- 179.
	高沁怡, 潘春霞, 刘强, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的林业碳汇项目风险评价. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45 (4): 210- 218.
	Gao Q Y , Pan C X , Liu Q , et al. Risk assessment of forestry carbon sequestration projects based on Bayesian network. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2021, 45 (4): 210- 218.
	龚荣发. 2019. 退耕农户参与森林经营碳汇项目行为研究. 成都: 四川农业大学.
	Gong R F. 2019. Study on behavior of farmers of returning farmland to forests participation in forest management carbon sequestration project. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University. [in Chinese]
	胡卸文, 金涛, 殷万清, 等. 西昌市经久乡森林火灾火烧区特点及火后泥石流易发性评价. 工程地质学报, 2020, 28 (4): 762- 771.
	Hu X W , Jin T , Yin W Q , et al. The characteristics of forest fire burned area and susceptibility assessment of post-fire debris flow in Jingjiu Township, Xichang City. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2020, 28 (4): 762- 771.
	黄宰胜, 陈钦. 我国林业碳汇成本影响因素研究—基于土地利用机会成本的实证检验. 价格理论与实践, 2015, (11): 73- 75.
	Huang Z S , Chen Q . Study on influencing factors of forestry carbon sequestration cost in China—an empirical test based on opportunity cost of land use. Price: Theory & Practice, 2015, (11): 73- 75.
	金婷, 吴伟光, 刘强, 等. 林业CCER碳汇项目风险评估模型与应用——以安吉竹林经营碳汇项目为例. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31 (4): 91- 96.
	Jin T , Wu W G , Liu Q , et al. Risk assessment model of forestry-based CCER project and its application: a case study of Anji bamboo forest sink project. World Forestry Research, 2018, 31 (4): 91- 96.
	金婷, 高沁怡, 曹先磊, 等. 林业碳汇项目风险测度及其影响研究. 林业经济问题, 2021, 41 (3): 304- 310.
	Jin T , Gao Q Y , Cao X L , et al. Research on risk measurement and impact of forestry carbon sink project. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2021, 41 (3): 304- 310.
	梁林恒, 周幼吾. 大兴安岭阿木尔森林火灾区积雪分布特征调查. 冰川冻土, 1992, 14 (2): 134- 140.
	Liang L H , Zhou Y W . An investigation on the distribution of snow cover in the burned forest region of Amue of Da Hinggan Ling. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 1992, 14 (2): 134- 140.
	刘凌燕, 王慧敏, 刘钢, 等. 供需视角下水—能源—粮食系统风险的驱动机理与政策仿真—面向东北三省的系统动力学分析. 软科学, 2020, 34 (12): 52- 60.
	Liu L Y , Wang H M , Liu G , et al. Driving mechanism and policy simulation of water-energy-food risks from the perspective of supply and demand: a case study of northeast china for system dynamics analysis. Soft Science, 2020, 34 (12): 52- 60.
	祁龙. 冰川、积雪及泥石流灾害研究的回顾与设想. 冰川冻土, 1998, 20 (3): 57- 65.
	Qi L . Review and prospect of research on disasters from snow, glaciers and debris flow. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 1998, 20 (3): 57- 65.
	钱柯君. 2016. 基于森林小气候的火险等级预警模型的探究. 长沙: 湖南农业大学.
	Qian K J. 2016. The research of the fire danger rating prediction model based on the forest microclimate. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University. [in Chinese]
	石柳, 唐玉华, 张捷. 我国林业碳汇市场供需研究——以广东长隆碳汇造林项目为例. 中国环境管理, 2017, 9 (1): 104- 110.
	Shi L , Tang Y H , Zhang J . Supply-demand analysis of the forest carbon sink market in China——illustrated by the Guangdong Chimelong carbon sink afforestation project. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 9 (1): 104- 110.
	孙丹萍, 徐睿, 梁铁旺, 等. 锈色粒肩天牛生态学特性研究. 西北林学院学报, 2007, 22 (5): 114- 116.
	Sun D P , Xu R , Liang T W , et al. A study on ecological characteristics of Apriona swainsoni population. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2007, 22 (5): 114- 116.
	王孟钧, 唐晓莹, 邱琦, 等. 重大基础设施工程技术决策风险因素作用机理研究. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18 (6): 1640- 1649.
	Wang M J , Tang X Y , Qiu Q , et al. Research on the interaction mechanism of technological decision-making risk factors in mega projects. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18 (6): 1640- 1649.
	武曙红, 张小全. CDM林业碳汇项目的非持久性风险分析. 林业科学, 2007, 43 (8): 123- 126.
	Wu S H , Zhang X Q . Analyses on non-permanence issues of CDM forestry project. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2007, 43 (8): 123- 126.
	徐鲲, 张驰, 鲍新中. 基于电商平台自有资金的供应链融资风险系统分析与仿真. 系统科学学报, 2021, 29 (2): 100- 104. 100-104+115
	Xu K , Zhang C , Bao X Z . Analysis on the risk formation mechanism of supply chain financing based on the self-owned funds of e-commerce platform. Journal of Systems Science, 2021, 29 (2): 100- 104. 100-104, 115
	张静娉, 高岚. 我国碳汇林经营风险的识别研究. 中南林业科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2016, 10 (2): 14- 18.
	Zhang J P , Gao L . Research on Identification of the forest carbon sinks business risk in China. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology(Social Sciences Edition), 2016, 10 (2): 14- 18.
	张文勤, 纪成俭, 王文烂, 等. 福建省森林灾害的发生情况与主要成因分析. 林业经济问题, 2001, 21 (3): 175- 178.
	Zhang W Q , Ji C J , Wang W C , et al. Analyzing reason and status quo of forest disaster in Fujian. Issue of Forestry Economics, 2001, 21 (3): 175- 178.
	张益玉, 祁慧博, 徐秀英, 等. 林业碳汇市场需求响应政策组合效应研究. 林业经济问题, 2021, 41 (3): 311- 319.
	Zhang Y Y , Qi H B , Xu X Y , et al. Research on the policy combination effect of the demand response of the forestry carbon sink market. Issue of Forestry Economics, 2021, 41 (3): 311- 319.
	朱添金, 赵庆建, 杨慧, 等. 基于VAR模型的碳汇价值对我国木材价格的影响. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42 (5): 191- 195.
	Zhu T J , Zhao Q J , Yang H , et al. Influence of carbon sink value on China's wood price based on VAR model. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2018, 42 (5): 191- 195.
	Chandra P H . Structural equation model for investigating risk factors affecting project success in Surabaya. Procedia Engineering, 2015, 125, 53- 59. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.009
	Christopher S G , Robert B . Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257 (11): 2209- 2216.
	Fan D , Lo C K , Zhou Y . Sustainability risk in supply bases: The role of complexity and coupling. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2021, 145, 102175.
	Forrester J W . Industrial dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1997, 48 (10): 1037- 1041.
	Huettner M . Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environmental Science and Policy, 2011, 15 (1): 4- 12.
	Hurst N, Willams D R, Marshall P. 1998. Risk assessment: The Human Dimension. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry, 1-101.
	Marchisio C , Cescatti A , Battisti A . Climate, soils and Cephalcia arvensis outbreaks on Picea abies in the Italian Alps. Forest Ecology & Management, 1994, 68 (2/3): 375- 384.
	Qiao W G . Analysis and measurement of multifactor risk in underground coal mine accidents based on coupling theory. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021, 208, 107443.
	Richards K R , Moulton R J , Bridsey R A . Cost of creating carbon sinks in the U.S. Pergamon, 1993, 34 (9/11): 905- 912.
	Xue Y T , Xiang P C , Jia F Y , et al. Risk assessment of high-speed rail projects: a risk coupling model based on system dynamics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17 (15): 5307.

风险子系统 Risk subsystem	风险因子 Risk factor
自然风险 Natural risk R₁	干旱灾害Drought R₁₁
	洪涝灾害Flood R₁₂
	森林病害Forest diseases R₁₃
	森林虫害Forest pest R₁₄
	大风灾害Windstorm R₁₅
	森林火灾Forest fire R₁₆
	冰雪灾害Ice and snow R₁₇
	地质灾害Geological hazard R₁₈
技术风险 Technical risk R₂	项目未能获得备案The project was not filed R₂₁
	项目参与者未按作业设计要求实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation designR₂₂
	项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃
	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄
市场风险 Market risk R₃	利率变动Interest rate changed R₃₁
	林地租金变动Forest land rent changed R₃₂
	劳动力价格变动Labor price changed R₃₃
	碳汇价格变动Carbon sink price changed R₃₄
	木材价格变动Timber price changed R₃₅
	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆
政策风险 Policy risk R₄	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁
	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂
	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃
	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄

原始分值 Original score	1~5	6~10	11~15	16~20	21~25
转化分值 Adjusted score	1	2	3	4	5

风险状态 Risk status	极低 Extremely low	低 Low	中 Middle	高 High	极高 Extremely high
初始值 Initial value	0.1	0.3	0.5	0.7	0.9

风险因子 Risk factor	初始值 Initial value	风险因子 Risk factor	初始值 Initial value
干旱灾害 Drought R₁₁	0.220	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄	0.339
洪涝灾害 Flood R₁₂	0.220	利率变动 Interest rate changed R₃₁	0.422
森林病害 Forest diseases R₁₃	0.298	林地租金变动 Forest land rent changed R₃₂	0.452
森林虫害 Forest pest R₁₄	0.298	劳动力价格变动 Labor price changed R₃₃	0.505
大风灾害 Windstorm R₁₅	0.212	碳汇价格变动 Carbon sink price changed R₃₄	0.392
森林火灾 Forest fire R₁₆	0.327	木材价格变动 Timber price changed R₃₅	0.342
冰雪灾害 Ice and snow R₁₇	0.212	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆	0.394
地质灾害 Geological hazard R₁₈	0.187	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁	0.449
项目未能获得备案 The project was not filed R₂₁	0.334	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂	0.426
项目参与者未按作业设计实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation design R₂₂	0.295	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃	0.381
项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃	0.284	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄	0.426

耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	耦合系数 Coupling coefficient	耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	耦合系数 Coupling coefficient
C_{R₁₂-R₁₇}	0.434	C_{R₃₅-R₃₃}	0.398
C_{R₁₃-R₁₂}	0.327	C_{R₃₅-R₃₄}	0.575
C_{R₁₄-R₁₁}	0.327	C_{R₃₆-R₃₁}	0.372
C_{R₁₆-R₁₃}	0.274	C_{R₃₆-R₃₂}	0.327
C_{R₁₆-R₁₄}	0.274	C_{R₃₆-R₃₃}	0.319
C_{R₁₆-R₁₅}	0.283	C_{R₃₆-R₃₄}	0.540
C_{R₁₇-R₁₆}	0.283	C_{R₃₆-R₃₅}	0.451
C_{R₁₈-R₁₂}	0.531	C_{R₄₂-R₄₁}	0.496
C_{R₁₈-R₁₆}	0.257	C_{R₄₃-R₄₂}	0.584
C_{R₁₈-R₁₇}	0.434	C_{R₄₄-R₄₂}	0.681
C_{R₂₁-R₂₂}	0.443	C_{R₂₁-R₄₃}	0.425
C_{R₂₂-R₂₃}	0.673	C_R₂₄-R₁	0.443
C_{R₂₃-R₂₁}	0.504	C_{R₃₄-R₄₂}	0.425
C_{R₂₄-R₂₁}	0.858	C_R₃₅-R₁	0.416
C_{R₂₄-R₂₂}	0.434	C_{R₃₆-R₂₄}	0.381
C_{R₃₄-R₃₆}	0.540	C_{R₃₆-R₄₂}	0.460
C_{R₃₅-R₃₁}	0.460	C_{R₄₂-R₃₆}	0.460
C_{R₃₅-R₃₂}	0.425

Risk of Forestry Carbon Sink Project Based on Coupling Effect

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 18

References 0

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

风险等级 Risk rank	风险水平值区间 Risk level value interval	风险程度 Risk degree
Ⅰ	0 < V≤1.817	稍微危险，可以接受 Slightly danger, acceptable
Ⅱ	1.817 < V≤5.449	一般危险，需要注意 General danger, cautious
Ⅲ	5.449 < V≤9.083	显著危险，需要调整 Obvious danger, need to adjust
Ⅳ	9.083 < V≤12.716	高度危险，立即调整 High danger, adjust immediately
Ⅴ	13.716 < V≤16.349	极度危险，应当暂停 Significant danger, should be suspended

	同时考虑2种耦合效应 Considering homogeneous and heterogeneous coupling effects	2种耦合效应均不考虑 Without considering homogeneous or heterogeneous coupling effects	仅考虑异质耦合 Only considering heterogeneous coupling effects	仅考虑同质耦合 Only considering homogeneous coupling effects
整体风险水平 Overall risk level	6.784	0.355	0.929	3.102
风险等级 Risk rank	Ⅲ	Ⅰ	Ⅰ	Ⅱ

风险子系统 Risk subsystem	原始风险水平SR_i Original risk level SR_i	风险等级 Risk rank	相对权重 Relative weight ω_{R_i}^*	贡献程度 Degree of contribution ε_{R_i}(%)
自然风险 Natural risk	1.320	Ⅱ	0.286	5.56
技术风险 Technical risk	6.173	Ⅲ	0.172	15.65
市场风险 Market risk	10.874	Ⅲ	0.322	51.61
政策风险 Policy risk	8.495	Ⅲ	0.217	27.17

风险子系统 Risk subsystem	不考虑同质耦合效应时项目整体风险水平 The overall risk level of the project without considering homogeneous coupling	同质耦合效应 Homogeneous coupling effect	不考虑异质耦合效应时项目整体风险水平 The overall risk level of the project without considering heterogeneous coupling	异质耦合效应 Heterogeneous coupling effect	不考虑全部耦合效应时项目整体风险水平 The overall risk level of the project without considering all coupling	全部耦合效应 Total coupling effect
自然风险 Natural risk	6.383	0.059	6.503	0.041	6.198	0.086
技术风险 Technical risk	5.625	0.171	6.084	0.103	5.299	0.219
市场风险 Market risk	3.215	0.526	4.643	0.316	2.426	0.642
政策风险 Policy risk	5.262	0.224	4.743	0.301	4.062	0.401

耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	移除后项目整体风险水平 Overall risk level of the project after removal	同质耦合效应 Homogeneous coupling effect	耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	移除后项目整体风险水平 Overall risk level of the project after removal	同质耦合效应 Homogeneous coupling effect
C_{R₁₂-R₁₇}	6.681	0.015	C_{R₂₄-R₂₂}	6.677	0.016
C_{R₁₃-R₁₂}	6.747	0.005	C_{R₃₄-R₃₆}	5.132	0.244
C_{R₁₄-R₁₁}	6.719	0.010	C_{R₃₅-R₃₁}	6.609	0.026
C_{R₁₆-R₁₃}	6.718	0.010	C_{R₃₅-R₃₂}	6.611	0.026
C_{R₁₆-R₁₄}	6.713	0.010	C_{R₃₅-R₃₃}	6.603	0.027
C_{R₁₆-R₁₅}	6.746	0.006	C_{R₃₅-R₃₄}	5.996	0.116
C_{R₁₇-R₁₆}	6.666	0.017	C_{R₃₆-R₃₁}	6.486	0.044
C_{R₁₈-R₁₂}	6.732	0.008	C_{R₃₆-R₃₂}	6.503	0.041
C_{R₁₈-R₁₆}	6.742	0.006	C_{R₃₆-R₃₃}	6.478	0.045
C_{R₁₈-R₁₇}	6.740	0.006	C_{R₃₆-R₃₄}	5.635	0.169
C_{R₂₁-R₂₂}	6.460	0.048	C_{R₃₆-R₃₅}	5.702	0.159
C_{R₂₂-R₂₃}	6.387	0.059	C_{R₄₂-R₄₁}	6.254	0.078
C_{R₂₃-R₂₁}	6.444	0.050	C_{R₄₃-R₄₂}	6.115	0.099
C_{R₂₄-R₂₁}	6.226	0.082	C_{R₄₄-R₄₂}	6.251	0.079

耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	移除后项目整体风险水平 Overall risk level of the project after removal	异质耦合效应 Heterogeneous coupling effect	耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	移除后项目整体风险水平 Overall risk level of the project after removal	异质耦合效应 Heterogeneous coupling effect
C_{R₂₁-R₄₃}	6.319	0.069	C_{R₃₆-R₂₄}	6.084	0.103
C_R₂₄-R₁	6.646	0.020	C_{R₃₆-R₄₂}	5.899	0.130
C_{R₃₄-R₄₂}	6.030	0.111	C_{R₄₂-R₃₆}	4.643	0.316
C_R₃₅-R₁	6.641	0.021

[1]	Rui Bai,Ning Li,Shaojun Liu,Xiaomin Chen,Haiping Zou,Run Lü. Risk Analysis of White Root Disease on Rubber Trees in China under the Background of Future Climate Change [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(6): 37-45.
[2]	Xingxia Ma,Lin Wang,Haiyan Zhu,Bo Liu,Bin Zhang,Yun Lu,Yanhua Wang,Mingliang Jiang,Liuru Wang. Risk Zones of Carpenter Bees for Wooden Structure of Ancient Buildings in China [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(4): 116-123.
[3]	Jiangxia Ye,Jingwen Wang,Mingsha Zhang,Ruliang Zhou,Lei Shi. Risk Pattern Analysis of Hyphantria cunea Based on Spatial Matrix Model and 0-1 Measure [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(1): 140-152.
[4]	Shanyong He,Fei Xu,Ning Zhang,Junbao Wen,Liping Yin. Applicability of the United States Weed Risk Assessment System to Invasive Plants in China [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(4): 197-208.
[5]	Hou Xiaojing, Ming Jinke, Qin Rongshui, Zhu Jiping. Analysis of the Fire Risk in Wildland-Urban Interface with Random Forest Model [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(8): 194-200.
[6]	Li Niwen, Zhang Xiaoli, Zhang Ning, Zhu Chenghao, Sun Zhenfeng. Hazards Evaluation of Dendrolimus tabulaeformis (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) Based on Weighted Information Value Model [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(3): 106-117.
[7]	Li Shiliang, Ni Zhanglin, Mo Runhong, Qu Minghua, Tang Fubin, Liu Yihua. The Contents and Risk Assessments of Heavy Metals in Walnuts from the Main Producing Areas of Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan Provinces [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2017, 53(11): 52-59.
[8]	Sun Zhiqaing, Zhao Yang, Ma Zhigang, Du Hongyan, Zhu Jingle, Wang Hao, Chen Junhua, Fu Jianmin. Risk Grading for Damage of the Defoliator Orthosia songi (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2016, 52(7): 78-86.
[9]	Hu Dongnan, Tu Shuping, Liu Liangying, Zhang Wenyuan, Guo Xiaomin. Effects of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Irrigation on the Growth of Spring-shoots in Mature stands of Camellia oleifera [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2015, 51(4): 148-155.
[10]	Su Lijuan, He Youjun, Chen Shaozhi. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics and Risk Analysis of Forest Fires in China from 1950 to 2010 [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2015, 51(1): 88-96.
[11]	Zhao Chunyan, Li Jiping, Ma Wenjun, Yuan Xiaohong, Zheng Liu. Multi-Scale Forest Landscape Classification Considering Coupling Effect [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(11): 183-188.
[12]	Huang Cuixiang, Zhang Wenhui, Xia Yanfei, Wang Rong, Dong Yan, Shen Xiang. Pollution Status of PAHs in Orchard Soil of Road Side [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(10): 23-27.
[13]	Wu Jianwei;Li Jinrong;Xing Ende;Huang Lina. Risk Assessment of Sand Storm Disaster in Xilingol Region Based on the Underlying Surfaces Factors [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2012, 48(9): 1-7.
[14]	Zhu Fan;Tian Dalun;Yan Wende;Wang Guangjun;Liang Xiaocui. Effects of Afforestation Species on Concentration of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Contaminated Soils [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2011, 47(8): 38-43.
[15]	He Shanyong;Zhu Yinfei;Adili Satar;Wen Junbao;Chen Meng;Tian Chengming. Pest Risk Assessment of Carpomya veusuviana in China [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2011, 47(3): 107-116.