Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

A framework for allocating conservation resources among multiple threats and actions

Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species-action combination that accounted for each species’ current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread); arrival probability; spread rate; impact, if present, of each species; and management effectiveness of each species-action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget; there was no single optimal management action for each species; and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost-effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.     

大型油库消防系统存在问题分析及预防

对某些油库消防系统存在的阀门泄漏、冬李稳高压系统投用、消防自动设施故障、泡沫液失效、设计规范问题进行了分析,提出要从施工质量、隐患整改、消防演练、维保检测4方面进行预防,保证消防系统在扑灭初期火灾时效能达到最优。     

关于云南省环境影响评价工作的思考

在概述环境影响评价制度发展历史基础之上,分析了云南省环境影响评价工作现状,指出了面临的突出问题及其影响和危害,并结合突出问题提出了对策建议,以期对促进全省环境影响评价事业健康发展有所裨益。     

浅谈我国安全评价工作存在的问题及对策

针对我国目前安全评价工作中存在缺乏依法行政、评价标准不规范、管理不到位等问题和不足之处,提出了一些改进的建议和对策,以为企业实行安全生产目标管理提供科学标准以及为政府及行业实施宏观安全管理提供科学的依据。     

新农村生活污水处理设施问题初探

农村生活污水无害化排放不仅是新农村建设的要求,也是改善农村居民生活环境的需要。本文分析了中国新农村生活污水部分处理设施存在的问题及原因,并针对新农村生活污水处理设施在工程设计、施工、监管和运行管理上提出了一些探讨性的建议,期望能为中国新农村污水处理设施的建设提供有益的参考作用。     

清洁生产审核工作中几个问题浅析

介绍了长期从事清洁生产咨询和培训工作中常遇到的问题,并提出了看法。     

浅议曲靖市煤矿资源开发中的生态环境建设

通过调查,分析了曲靖煤矿资源开发中存在的主要环境问题,对加强矿区生态环境建设提出了措施和建议。     

自动监测系统建设应该注意的几个问题

水质自动监测系统由中心站和水质自动监测子站组成,在全国范围内已经得到了广泛的应用。当地环境监测部门有责任对自动监测系统的建设进行参与和监督。本文分别从水质自动监测系统基础建设前期、基础建设时期、系统建设时期、试运行等各个阶段指出了系统建设应注意的问题。     

江苏省重要生态功能保护区划分的问题及对策分析

江苏省重要生态功能保护区的划分,为实现社会经济和生态环境的协调发展奠定了良好基础。针对重要生态功能保护区划分过程中存在的各种问题,如划分区域分割、划分随意性大、禁止开发区少、管理不到位等,分别从技术层面和管理层面提出了相应的对策与建议,为重要生态功能保护区划分的完善和生态功能的充分发挥提供了可行方案。