旅游区环境容量测算方法探讨

通过对现有的旅游环境容量测算方法进行分析评价,针对传统计算方法的不足之处,提出了相应的改进意见,以使旅游环境容量评价的结果更能体现可持续发展的思想,促进旅游资源的永续利用。     

九寨沟景区旅游环境容量研究

本文从不同的视角对九寨沟景区现状条件下的旅游生态环境容量、旅游空间容量、旅游服务设施容量和旅游社会环境容量进行了定量分析，获得了九寨沟景区现状条件下最大旅游环境容量和最佳旅游环境容量值；诊断出九寨沟旅游生态环境容量充分满足游客需求，但服务设施的不足限制了大量游人的进入。     

地下水位下降对塔里木河下游绿洲生态环境的影响——以34团为例

塔里木河地处我国西北干旱区,是我国最长的内陆河。过去50a来由于大规模的不合理的水土资源开发和人类活动,导致塔里木河在以水资源开发利用为核心的大强度人类经济、社会活动的作用下,流域自然生态过程发生了显著变化。分析了塔里木河下游地下水位下降对绿洲农业生态环境的影响,提出了保障该地区生态和经济发展的对策与建议。     

吉林市江北化工区环境容量研究

本文通过对吉林市江北化工区内、外的大气污染物SO2排放调查,以及环境空气中SO2浓度调查,并应用多源模型（ISC3）,结合B值削减分配法计算江北化工区环境空气中SO2的环境容量,计算出该区域的剩余环境容量为16732．04t／a。     

区域理论大气环境容量研究

根据质量守恒原理,综合考虑迁移、扩散、干湿沉降、化学转化等因素,建立了区域理论大气环境容量模型——容量箱模型,对各参数的量化提出了计算式。在考虑自然保护区、风景名胜区等环境敏感区和地形陡峭的山坡不能布置工业企业的情况下,提出了可利用大气环境容量概念。并以乐山市北部地区为例,计算了该区域的SO2理论大气环境容量,为乐山市相关管理部门进行生产力布局提供了宏观导向。     

总量控制下环境容量产权交易及政府行为分析

利用经济学的原理,本文分析了环境容量的经济特点(不是环境容量产权交易的特征),提出了环境容量产权交易的可行性和必要性。同时针对政府在环境容量产权交易中的作用进行了必要的分析。     

西宁市北川地区氟化物环境容量的计算

由高斯烟羽扩散模式推导出的标准浓度分布向源强分布的反演模式方法,计算了西宁市北川地区环境空气中氟化物的环境容量。北川地区因环境功能区不同,其环境容量也不一样。计算结果表明：拟建或已在生产的各铝厂氟化物排放量均不超过按城市标准计算出的环境容量值,但均超过按农业区标准计算的环境容量值。为了保护北川地区农业生态环境,需要对现有各铝厂氟化物排放量进行削减。因排放源分布不均匀,使得远离排放源的地区尚有较大的环境容量,而距排放源较近的地区无环境容量。     

辽宁省城市自然灾害风险评价及综合减灾对策研究

在全球自然灾害频发的背景下,城市自然灾害风险研究引起国际社会和国内外学者的高度关注.在大量数据与文献资料的基础上,借鉴国内外自然灾害风险研究的成果,对辽宁省城市自然灾害强度进行综合评价,划分风险等级,最终利用ArcGIS技术绘制风险评价图,以期为辽宁省政府风险管理决策、城市综合减灾降险工作提供科学依据和技术支撑.     

洪水灾害风险评价研究综述

洪水灾害是当今世界最严重的自然灾害之一,带来了巨大的人员伤亡和经济损失。洪水灾害风险评价是科学有效地防洪减灾的前提和基础。文章对洪水灾害风险相关概念进行了界定,从气象、水文水力、社会经济、遥感与GIS和土地利用5个方面对洪水灾害风险评价的常用方法进行了评述,并列出了常用的评价因子。最后指出了未来研究的可能发展方向。     

地质灾害后旅游目的地感知形象的重塑研究

地质灾害的发生会影响旅游活动的开展,严重时会使旅游产业遭到彻底破坏或陷于混乱.根据对旅游目的地感知形象的形成过程和影响因素的综述,深入分析了地质灾害对旅游目的地感知形象的影响,从旅游活动发生前、旅游活动发生过程中和旅游活动结束后等三个阶段提出重塑旅游目的地感知形象的对策措施,有针对性地使旅游目的地形象得到高效恢复和重塑,使资源的投入和产出水平达到最佳.     

Environmental Justice,Local Knowledge,and Risk: The Discourse of a Community-Based Cumulative Exposure Assessment

While risk assessment continues to drive most environmental management decision-making, its methods and assumptions have been criticized for, among other things, perpetuating environmental injustice. The justice challenges to risk assessment claim that the process ignores the unique and multiple hazards facing low-income and people of color communities and simultaneously excludes the local, non-expert knowledge which could help capture these unique hazards from the assessment discourse. This paper highlights some of these challenges to conventional risk assessment and suggests that traditional models of risk characterization will continue to ignore the environmental justice challenges until cumulative hazards and local knowledge are meaningfully brought into the assessment process. We ask whether a shift from risk to exposure assessment might enable environmental managers to respond to the environmental justice critiques. We review the US EPA's first community-based Cumulative Exposure Project, piloted in Brooklyn, NY, and highlight to what extent this process addressed the risk assessment critiques raised by environmental justice advocates. We suggest that a shift from risk to exposure assessment can provide an opportunity for local knowledge to both improve the technical assessment and its democratic nature and may ultimately allow environmental managers to better address environmental justice concerns in decision-making.     

环境风险评价构架的探讨

本文归纳并概括了国际上和我国环境风险评价的一般构架,从环境风险评价、安全评价、健康评价、生态评价、最大可信灾害事故及最大可接受水平等几个方面对我国环境风险评价一般构架进行了探讨,分析了我国环境风险评价构架中存在的问题,提出了进一步完善我国环境风险评价一般构架的方法,并辅以了案例分析。     

环境风险评价的实践与发展

环境风险评价（Environmental Risk Assessment ERA）是环境影响评价的一个重要分支,主要分析评价环境中的潜在危险。本文围绕开展ERA的必要怀、国内外ERA发展现状等方面进行了评述,在此基础上针对目前ERA工作中的不足提出了三点建议。     

Improving the TMDL Process Using Watershed Risk Assessment Principles

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) evaluates potential causal relationships between multiple sources and stressors and impacts on valued ecosystem components. ERAs applied at the watershed scale have many similarities to the place-based analyses that are undertaken to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), in which linkages are established between stressors, sources, and water quality standards, including support of designated uses. TMDLs focus on achieving water quality standards associated with attainment of designated uses. In attempting to attain the water quality standard, many TMDLs focus on the stressor of concern rather than the ecological endpoint or indicators of the designated use that the standard is meant to protect. A watershed ecological risk assessment (WERA), at least in theory, examines effects of most likely stressors, as well as their probable sources in the watershed, to prioritize management options that will most likely result in meeting environmental goals or uses. Useful WERA principles that can be applied to TMDL development include: development and use of comprehensive conceptual models in the Problem Identification step of TMDLs; use of a transparent process for selecting Numeric Targets for TMDLs based on assessment endpoints derived from the management goal or designated use under consideration; analysis of co-occurring stressors likely to cause beneficial use impairment based on the conceptual model; use of explicit uncertainty analyses in the Linkage Analysis step of TMDL development; and frequent stakeholder interactions throughout the process. WERA principles are currently most applicable to those TMDLs in which there is no numeric standard and, therefore, indicators and targets need to be developed, such as many nutrient or sediment TMDLs. WERA methods can also be useful in determining TMDL targets in situations where simply targeting the water quality standard may re-attain the numeric criterion but not the broader designated use. Better incorporation of problem formulation principles from WERA into the TMDL development process would be helpful in improving the scientific rigor of TMDLs.     

建设项目环境风险预测在环境影响评价中的应用

文章结合《建设项目环境风险评价技术导则》,论述了建设项目环境风险评价的内涵以及建设项目进行环境风险评价的必要性,探讨了环境风险评价在环境影响评价中的应用并举出工程实例加以阐述。     

Perspectives of the Scientific Community on the Status of Ecological Risk Assessment

/ Views from a wide variety of practicing environmental professionals on the current status of ecological risk assessment (ERA) indicate consensus and divergence of opinion on the utility and practice of risk assessment. Central to the debate were the issues of whether ERA appropriately incorporates ecological and scientific principle into its conceptual paradigm. Advocates argue that ERA effectively does both, noting that much of the fault detractors find with the process has more to do with its practice than its purpose. Critics argue that failure to validate ERA predictions and the tendency to over-simplify ecological principles compromise the integrity of ERA and may lead to misleading advice on the appropriate responses to environmental problems. All authors felt that many improvements could be made, including validation, better definition of the ecological questions and boundaries of ERA, improved harmonization of selected methods, and improvements in the knowledge base. Despite identified deficiencies, most authors felt that ERA was a useful process undergoing evolutionary changes that will inevitably determine the range of environmental problems to which it can be appropriately applied. The views expressed give ERA a cautious vote of approval and highlight many of the critical strengths and weaknesses in one of our most important environmental assessment tools.KEY WORDS: Ecological risk assessment; Ecology; Probability