浅析区域环境影响评价与累积效应分析

区域环境影响评价和累积效应分析都刘为克服传统环境评价的不足而提出的。本文从概念、目的、原则、内容和研究现状等我方面对区域环境评价和累积效应进行了分析比较，建议我国今后将累积效应分析的内容纳入项目和区域环境影响评价之中     

幕景分析法在累积影响评价中的实例应用研究

探讨了幕景分析方法在累积影响评谷中的应用途径，并将基于水质模型的幕景分析方法应用于水库投饵网箱养鱼项目，评价了累积影响的重大性，提出了相应的累积影响消减措施，其影响分析和评价结论对今后投饵网箱养鱼的环境管理具有重要价值，对建设项目EIA中增加累积影响 评价的内容提出建议。     

可持续发展与累积影响评价

阐述可持续发展概念与内涵，分析可持续发展要求下传统环境影响评价制度的弊端。累积影响评价在概念、目标与方法上与可持续发展一致，探讨了累积影响评价的特点与必要性。     

建议在我国开展累积影响评价的理论与实践研究

阐述了可持续发展目标要求下传统环境影响评价制度的弊端,分析了累积影响评价与可持续发展的关系以及进行累积影响评价的必要性,回顾了国内外累积影响评价研究的现状,论述了在我国开展累积影响评价研究的目的、研究内容和研究方法。      

浅谈建设项目累积影响评价工作内容及方法

提出了我国进行建设项目累积影响评价的具体工作内容,包括:识别累积环境问题、确定评价范围、预测分析累积影响效应、累积影响结果评价、提出累积影响减缓措施、进行累积影响监测与适应性管理。并对适合于各个过程采用的分析评价方法作了归纳说明。     

回顾性评价在战略环境评价中的重要性和作用

战略环境评价具有可持续性、长效性、区域性、综合性和不确定性的本质和特点,使其在实际应用中存在许多困难.本文阐述了回顾性评价在战略环境评价中的优点与作用,包括时环境影响的识别、研究环境的变化趋势、评价已产生的累积影响、为资源价值评估和损益分析提供必要的支撑,为战略环境预测评价提供可靠的定量和累积影响评价的依据.     

江苏滨海海上风电场建设对近岸海洋生态环境的累积影响评价

近年来海上风电事业高速发展,而短期内在较小的区域之中建设多个海上风电场会对海洋生态环境造成累积影响。通过对海上风电场建设的累积影响识别,综合运用情景分析法、GIS方法、赋值计算法,结合滨海县海上风电场建设的实际情况,定量分析并评价了海上风电场建设对近岸海域海洋水质和海洋生物造成的累积影响。研究表明:多个海上风电场建设对近岸海域和风电场区附近海域的生态环境累积影响较大,根据风电场建设规模变化设定的三种情景的累积影响综合得分分别为0.475、0.508、0.640,说明海上风电场建设产生的累积影响随建设数量和规模的增加而增加,评价结果表明短期内多个海上风电场建设对近岸海洋生态环境的累积影响较大,应在该海域内合理谨慎地开发海上风电,加强风电场建设管理以及采取有效的生态补偿措施以降低累积影响程度。     

累积影响评价:中国内地与香港的问题与实践探讨

将过去、现在和将来的其它活动包括在建议活动的评价范围 ,是累积影响评价区别于传统EIA的重要特征和关键环节 ,也是EIA进一步发展完善的重要趋势 .从法规要求、文本格式、时空范围、重点内容、减缓措施等方面 ,分析了内地和香港在环评实践过程中对累积影响的考虑状况及存在问题 .建议制定累积影响评价的技术方法导则 ,以法规的形式明确提出在项目、区域及策略环评中增加累积影响评价的内容 ,累积影响应在环评报告的摘要、目录及结论中专门列出 ,对累积影响时空范围的界定及重要性的判断应专门提供支持依据 ,评价的重点应较多地关注生态完整性、社会经济影响及全球性环境影响等 ,以更有效地预防累积环境影响问题 .     

累积影响研究及其意义

在综述累积研究现状的基础上,概述了累积影响的概念与分类方法,累积影响评价的主要途径,论述了累积影响研究的前景与意义。     

区域环境风险综合评价方法

区域环境风险综合评价是考虑到各种环境风险因素区域开发，居民健康等多方面危害的影响程度和差异性而综合评价的过程。对区域环境中主要风险因素评估的结果进行综合，对无量纲或同一量纲的数值进行综合，对危险累积或危险分布图进行拟合和叠图。从而得到区域环境风险综合指数，以此来表征区域风险的大小 。     

Tools and concepts for sustainable development,how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development,and to each other?

We present a general framework to plan for sustainability and then relate it to some well-known tools for sustainable development. This framework follows from principles for how a system is constituted (ecological and social principles), and contains principles for a favorable outcome for the system (sustainability), as well as principles for the process to reach this outcome (sustainable development). The principles for sustainability define the favorable outcome and direct problem-solving upstream towards problemsources. A program of activities is then constructed by backcasting from defined outcomes to the current problems. This is followed by “metrics”, i.e. various concepts for measuring and monitoring the activities. Most concepts and tools for sustainable development function as metrics, for instance life cycle assessment (LCA), ecological footprinting (EF), and Factor X. An environmental management system (EMS), like ISO 14001 or EMAS, is an administrative vehicle that should systematically align a firm's specific outcomes, activities and metrics with a general framework for sustainability. From a strategic point of view, metrics should measure alignment of activities with the principles contained in a framework for sustainability. A framework is not an alternative to concepts and tools for metrics. We need them all, because they represent different interrelated levels of strategic planning.     

Integrated assessment of urban environment in China

１　ＩｎｔｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎＩｎｔｅｇｒａｔｅｄｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌａｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔ（ＩＥＡ）ｉｓａｆｕｎｄａｍｅｎｔａｌｍｅａｎｓｆｏｒｃｏｍｐｒｅｈｅｎｓｉｖｅｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔａｎｄｆｏｒｃｏｏｒｄｉｎａｔｉｎｇｔｈｅｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓｈｉｐｂｅｔｗｅｅｎｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔａｎｄｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｉｏｎ．ＩＥＡａｉｍｓｔｏｉｄｅｎｔｉｆｙｔｈｅｍａｉｎｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌｐｒｏｂｌｅｍｓｉｎａｒｅｇｉｏｎ…     

基于可持续性的城市总体规划环境影响评价指标体系

城市总体规划（简称“总规”）是实施城市可持续性战略的重要载体,战略环境评价（SEA）是连接抽象的、宏观的可持续发展战略与具体的、可操作的建设项目之间的桥梁,是实施可持续发展战略的政策工具;指标体系是SEA工作的核心工作和评价依据。然而,当前存在城市总体规划环境影响评价（总规环评）指标体系与城市规划内容、城市可持续性脱节,指标体系的设计缺乏理论支撑等问题。本文首先归纳出城市可持续性的一般内涵,然后通过逻辑关系分析、影响评价矩阵的方法,识别总规的可持续性影响,构建了可持续性总规环评指标体系框架,最后以太仓为案例说明框架的应用。     

SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems

Sustainable development and the definition of indicators to assess progress towards sustainability have become a high priority in scientific research and on policy agendas. In this paper, we propose a consistent and comprehensive framework of principles, criteria and indicators (PC&I) for sustainability assessment of agricultural systems, referred to as the Sustainability Assessment of Farming and the Environment (SAFE) framework. In addition we formulate consistent and objective approaches for indicator identification and selection. The framework is designed for three spatial levels: the parcel level, the farm level and a higher spatial level that can be the landscape, the region or the state. The SAFE framework is hierarchical as it is composed of principles, criteria, indicators and reference values in a structured way. Principles are related to the multiple functions of the agro-ecosystem, which go clearly beyond the production function alone. The multifunctional character of the agro-ecosystem encompasses the three pillars of sustainability: the environmental, economic and social pillars. Indicators and reference values are the end-products of the framework. They are the operational tools that are used for evaluating the sustainability of the agro-ecosystems. The proposed analytical framework is not intended to find a common solution for sustainability in agriculture as a whole, but to serve as an assessment tool for the identification, the development and the evaluation of agricultural production systems, techniques and policies.     

交通规划环境影响评价的指标体系探讨

基于可持续发展的要求与环境管理的发展趋势，分析了制订交通规划环境影响评价的指标体系的原理，探讨了建立交通规划环境影响评价指标体系的基本框架和技术方法；以中国大中型城市为背景，建立了交通规划环境影响评价的DP-SIR可选指标集。     

A goal oriented indicator framework to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-environmental systems

The goal oriented framework (GOF) for indicators has been developed as part of a comprehensive research project developing computerised tools for integrated assessment of the effects of new policies or technologies on agricultural systems (SEAMLESS-IF). The ambition has therefore been to create an indicator framework where the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development can be related to each other in a consistent way. Integrated assessment tools rely on such frameworks to capture and visualise trade-offs (antagonisms or synergies) among indicators between and within the three dimensions of sustainable development. The specific aims of this paper are to (i) present the GOF (ii) present how the GOF can be used to select indicators within the integrated assessment framework SEAMLESS-IF and (iii) discuss the advantages and limitations with the proposed approach. We show that the GOF has several advantages. Its major rewards are its relative simplicity and the possibility to link indicators to policy goals of each dimension of sustainability and thereby facilitate the comparison of the impacts of the new policy on the different dimensions. Another important feature of the GOF is its multi-scale perspective, which will enable the comparison of effects of a new policy between scales. Yet, as typical for all indicator frameworks, the GOF has also biases either instigated by the issues the included models cover or by the stakeholders’ selection of indicators. However, due to the way the GOF and its indicators are technically implemented in SEAMLESS-IF, it can easily be extended and include new indicators to increase and update its policy relevance.     

Assessment of eco-labelling criteria development from a strategic sustainability perspective

To turn current patterns of consumption and production in a sustainable direction, solid and understandable market information on the socio-ecological performance of products is needed. Eco-labelling programmes have an important role in this communication. The aim of this study is to investigate what gaps there may be in the current criteria development processes in relation to a strategic sustainability perspective and develop recommendations on how such presumptive gaps could be bridged. First a previously published generic framework for strategic sustainable development is described and applied for the assessment of two eco-labelling programmes. Data for the assessment is collected from literature and in semi-structured interviews and discussions with eco-labelling experts.The assessment revealed that the programmes lack both an operational definition of sustainability, and a statement of objectives to direct and drive the criteria development processes. Consequently they also lack guidelines for how product category criteria might gradually develop in any direction. The selected criteria mainly reflect the current reality based on a selection of negative impacts in ecosystems, but how this selection, or prioritization, is made is not clearly presented. Finally, there are no guidelines to ensure that the criteria developers represent a broad enough competence to embrace all essential sustainability aspects.In conclusion the results point at deficiencies in theory, process and practice of eco-labelling, which hampers cohesiveness, transparency and comprehension. And it hampers predictability, as producers get no support in foreseeing how coming revisions of criteria will develop. This represents a lost opportunity for strategic sustainable development. It is suggested that these problems could be avoided by informing the criteria development process by a framework for strategic sustainable development, based on backcasting from basic sustainability principles.