Towards a smallholder hydrology for equitable and sustainable water management

Situations of water scarcity challenge sustainability and threaten small users' access to water. In response to this problem, there has been a search for a method of hydrological analysis that can better represent the needs of small water users. While this search is rooted in the debate favouring a more participatory and inclusive allocation of the resource, it also requires a new focus on smallholder hydrology that can confront the gaps and biases found in current hydrological practices in many countries. This article looks at past hydrological practices and also at results of recent studies, highlighting the perspective of smallholder irrigators in surface water planning in Zimbabwe, and groundwater planning in India. These case studies show that wider social forces, not always best science, drive hydrological practices. However, new frameworks focusing on the water user can emerge for more equitable and sustainable water management.     

Co-ordination for disasters

This paper was prepared in 1978 on the basis of a review of sociological and anthropological fieldwork conducted up to that time. Although theoretical in presentation its conclusions are formulated in accordance with the author's own extensive observations of organizational response to natural disasters in developing countries, especially those having sudden onset. Practical implications for co-ordination agencies and pre-disaster training are drawn.     

面向国土空间规划的“双评价”：挑战与应对

面向国土空间规划的科学性、可操作性、层级性等内涵,探讨了资源环境承载能力评价和国土空间开发适宜性评价（“双评价”）与国土空间规划之间的基本逻辑问题、应用挑战与应对方法。通过系统梳理“双评价”的理论发展和相关政策响应,剖析了“双评价”在应用探索、内涵扩充、系统支撑三个阶段的研究重点和服务目标,阐明了承载力评价与适宜性评价之间关联逻辑的演进历程。总结了当前“双评价”在应用上的几个关键挑战：一是“双评价”应用于“三区三线”划定的逻辑尚未明确;二是当前承载能力评价与未来规划决策之间存在逻辑悖论;三是“双评价”在不同层级国土空间规划中传导失灵;四是两个评价之间的关联逻辑仍存在争议。为此,提出了应对“双评价”挑战的四点建议：深化理论认知、拓展评价维度、建立传导机制、厘清内在关系,以提升“双评价”对国土空间规划决策的支撑能力。     

生态文明视角下的国土空间底线管控：“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警

生态文明新时代下的空间规划体系对国土空间底线管控提出了明确要求,“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警是底线思维的体现。研究“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警在国土空间底线管控中的作用和地位,通过国土空间规划“一张图”实施监督信息系统的建设,对二者的联系及其相互作用进行体现,构建二者的联动方式,服务于国土空间底线管控及治理的全过程。“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警共同组成底线管控的两个阶段,前者是开展底线管控的基础,后者是底线管控的路径和手段,两者皆是生态文明新时代下国土空间规划底线管控的重要工具,需以国土空间规划“一张图”实施监督信息系统为基础加强两者的有机结合。     

魅力国土空间:重塑区域特色的国土空间规划策略

国土空间规划的提出使我国的规划体系进入到新的发展时期与发展语境,国土空间开发方向已从生产空间为主导转向生态、生活、生产空间相协调。如何将基于“三生空间”概念的传统国土空间认知提升到丰富文化脉络、生态特征、生活基础的复合魅力国土空间,如何对不同区域的发展进行侧重,杜绝对单一发展模式的盲目跟风,是国家和地方面临的共同重大主题。结合国土空间在历史与现实不同时期的发展表征和形成原因,在回溯空间认知过程、反思空间规划实践的基础上,厘清了魅力国土空间的概念与内涵,提出国土空间规划体系下魅力国土空间的关注焦点,从区域发展平衡、管控弹性调整、空间要素流动、发展目标优化等方面阐述了魅力国土空间的作用与功能。     

长江经济带水质目标管理平台总体设计

为强化长江经济带资源整合与共享,集成统一规范的大数据平台,基于“十一五”“十二五”国家水体污染控制与治理科技重大专项数据和模型库资源,以面向服务的架构(SOA)和模块化设计为支撑,遵循“五横两纵四统一”的平台架构设计思路,应用大数据挖掘、云计算等现代信息技术,构建长江经济带水质目标管理平台.平台基于长江经济带水生态环境功能分区,兼顾不同类别水质目标管理技术的协调性、衔接性和适应性,对水质目标管理相关信息进行跟踪、模拟、分析和三维可视化表达,在水生态环境功能分区管理、数据汇交与信息共享、容量总量管理、风险评估与预警等方面实现业务化运行,实现全景式水质达标形势研判、一体化风险联防联控.平台已在国家长江生态环境保护修复联合研究中心进行业务化运行,将有效提升长江经济带水环境综合管理能力,同时可为其他重要流域水质目标管理提供信息化工作参考.      

油气田在役管道高后果区识别与完整性评价方法

根据油气管道建设与管理的相关标准与规范或导则,针对目前油气田在役管道,明确了其高后果区识别的划分及其在不同标准中的差异以及识别的原则和时间间隔,分别介绍了在管道的相关数据采集的基础上开展地质灾害和第三方破坏造成的管道风险评价方法,管道内外腐蚀的直接评价以及包括剩余强度、剩余寿命和材料在内的管道适用性评价方法,同时给出了这些评价工作所涉及到的相关内容项,对油田管道的完整性管理具有重要的指导作用和应用价值。     

经济手段防治白色污染的博弈分析

经济手段在环境管理中的作用及涉及到政府与各利益关系人之间的博弈过程。本文就政府与一次性餐具生产者，销售者之间的博弈关系，分析如何应用经济手段使其在防治“白色污染”中发挥更好的作用。     

Benchmarking for best practice environmental management

Benchmarking of environmental performance to demonstrate theachievement of best practice environmental management is acomponent of a new form of licensing of industrialdischarges in Western Australia. The paper describes theapproaches to benchmarking for the critical environmentalissues for an alumina refinery and wastewater treatmentplant. It also describes the lessons learnt from thebenchmarking process on appropriate methods, the benefitsand difficulties in the benchmarking process, and changesthat would assist benchmarking for best practiceenvironmental management.     

Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic ecosystems

Sustainable development of the aquatic environment depends upon routine and defensible cumulative effects assessment (CEA). CEA is the process of predicting the consequences of development relative to an assessment of existing environmental quality. Theoretically, it provides an on-going mechanism to evaluate if levels of development exceed the environment's assimilative capacity; i.e., its ability to sustain itself. In practice, the link between CEA and sustainable development has not been realized because CEA concepts and methods have developed along two dichotomous tracks. One track views CEA as an extension of the environmental assessment (EA) process for project developments. Under this track, stressor-based (S-B) methods have been developed where the emphasis is on local, project-related stressors, their link with aquatic indicators, and the potential for environmental effects through stressor-indicator interactions. S-B methods focus on the proposed development and prediction of project-related effects. They lack a mechanism to quantify existing aquatic quality especially at scales broader than an isolated development. This limitation results in the prediction of potential effects relative to a poorly defined baseline state. The other track views CEA as a broader, regional assessment tool where effects-based (E-B) methods specialize in quantification of existing aquatic effects over broad spatial scales. However, the predictive capabilities of E-B methods are limited because they are retrospective, i.e., the stressor causing the effect is identified after the effect has been measured. When used in isolation, S-B and E-B methods do not address CEA in the context necessary for sustainable development. However, if the strengths of these approaches were integrated into a holistic framework for CEA, an operational mechanism would exist to better monitor and assess sustainable development of our aquatic resources. This paper reviews the existing conceptual basis of CEA in Canada including existing methodologies, limitations and strengths. A conceptual framework for integrating project-based and regional-based CEA is presented.