SUSTAINABILITY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND MUNICIPAL TAX INCENTIVE MODEL

The implementation of sustainable development may seem a simple concept when written on paper. However to carry-out long term actions put forward by the Agenda 21 (AG21) at the local level represents one of the main challenges as municipal governments in general do not have the capacity to effectively implement the process. Regional environmental assessment (REA) has shown to be effective in supporting decision-making not only to correct environmental problems due to past unsustainable social-economic developments but also help local governments to implement sustainable actions. However this requires long-term investments of AG21 plans and projects. The allocation of regular and consistent financial resources is one of the main ingredients for the sustainable development process. But traditional plans and projects financed by national and/or international funds may not be sustainable in the long-term because they become dependent on external funding. Research demonstrate that innovative economic instruments such as ecotaxes represent a feasible alternative to sponsor local sustainability because taxes are collected permanently by the government and could be invested in continuous actions. Ecotaxes experiences have provided important reference to structure a municipal incentive model (MIM) to sponsor AG21’s environmental plans and projects on a long-term (permanent) basis. However sustainable development cannot be solely through economic investments. A comprehensive municipal environmental management scheme (MEMS) has been established to support the incentive model. The scheme seeks not only to improve local institutional framework but also incentive continuous participation of local stakeholders at all levels of society. Participatory events and the provision of incentives (educational and financial) are key to motivate society to protect the environment and support actively the sustainable development process as emphasised in the RIO-92 Conference.     

山东省矿产资源可持续利用面临的困境及解决途径

山东省正处于工业化的中期阶段。矿产资源可持续利用面临重大挑战。本文分析了我国矿业大省——山东省的矿产资源开发利用存在的问题。提出山东省提高矿产资源的保障能力、促进矿产资源可持续利用的对策建议。     

长江中游平原湖区农业开发地域分工与农产品专业化生产研究

农业生产地域分工与农产品专业化生产是使农业从自然经济阶段向以市场为导向的商品农产品生产转变的一个标志。本文在分析该区农业布局现状及其存在问题的基础上，提出了农业总体布局的设想与不同类型地域农业开发的主攻方向与对策，并对市场经济体制下粮食、棉花、猪、禽、水产品等农产品生产基地的地域选择、建设规模与技术措施等进行了探讨。     

中国经济的“阿基米德支点”

资源是经济发展的“阿基米德支点”：世界十大经济国每年能源的生产占全球的６２．１％，消费为７１．０％。重要矿产资源的生产多排在世界前１０名生产国之，外面是消费则多排在１０名之内，且对这些矿产资源的消费量多在９５％以上。     

The evolution of sustainability

Six separate but related strains of thought have emerged prominently since 1950 in discussions of such phenomena as the interrelationships among rates of population growth, resource use, and pressure on the environment. They are the ecological/carrying capacity root, the resources/environment root, the biosphere root, the critique of technology root, the no growth/slow growth root, and the ecodevelopment root.Each of these strains of thought was fully developed before the word sustainable itself was used. Many of the roots are based on fundamentally opposing assessments of the future of mankind. Many of the roots, such as the ecology/carrying capacity root, are based on physical concepts, and they exclude normative values. Others, such as the ecodevelopment root, include such values as equity, broad participation in governance, and decentralized government.When the word sustainability was first used in 1972 in the context of man's future, in a British book,Blueprint for Survival, normative concepts were prominent. This continued to be the case when the word was first used in 1974 in the United States to justify a no growth economy.Sustainability was first used in a United Nations document in 1978. Normative concepts, encapsulated in the term ecodevelopment, were prominent in the United Nations publications.After about 1978, the term sustainability began to be used not only in technological articles and reports but also in policy documents culminating in the use of the term in the report of the summit meeting of the Group of Seven in 1989.The roots of the term sustainability are so deeply embedded in fundamentally different concepts, each of which has valid claims to validity, that a search for a single definition seems futile. The existence of multiple meaning is tolerable if each analyst describes clearly what he means by sustainability.     

不同空间划分方式下袁河流域景观结构对水质的影响

近年来景观结构的水文效应受到关注,研究不同空间划分方式下景观结构对河流营养盐、重金属变化的影响机制对于流域生态保护具有重要意义.本文于2018年7月和2019年1月在袁河干流及支流38个采样点采集水样,测定水体营养盐类污染指标（DO、NO₃^--N、NH₄⁺-N、TP和DOC浓度）和重金属类污染指标（Cr、Mn、Fe、Cu、Zn、As、Cd和Pb浓度）.基于前向变量选择、冗余分析等方法,筛选景观结构指标,量化其在不同尺度下对水体营养盐、重金属变化的影响.结果表明：①农田、斑块密度（PD）、斑块聚集指数（COHESION）及散布与并列指数（IJI）是影响水体营养盐变化的主要指标.林地、建设用地（Res）、平均最近邻体距离（ENN_MN）和最大斑块指数（LPI）的组合是影响重金属变化的主要指标.②在河岸缓冲带与圆形缓冲区划分方式下,景观结构均在100 m尺度对营养盐变化解释能力最强,平均解释率分别为31.5%、24.3%,均在1000 m尺度对重金属变化解释能力最强,平均解释率分别为32.0%、42.6%.③100 m河岸缓冲带和子流域尺度分别是景观结构影响水体营养盐、重金属变化的最佳空间尺度,平均解释率分别为31.5%、42.8%.以上结果表明,针对水体不同的污染类型,采用对应的划分方式及缓冲尺度有助于提高定量分析精度,为流域水环境保护、景观优化与管理提供科学依据.     

2006—2018年中国省级以上开发区的空间分布特征变化

以新的国土空间规划语境为背景,基于核密度估计、标准差椭圆法和分类统计对我国2006—2018年省级以上开发区的密度分布特征变化、发展重心轴向的变化和主体功能区视角下的分布变化做了分析。研究表明：该阶段我国省级以上开发区空间分布的东西差距得到一定缓解,仍存在东部连片集聚、西部据点集中的模式差异。开发区分布的总体重心已经向西北方向移动,发展轴向则由原来的南北轴向转向了东南—西北轴向。从主体功能区视角来看,开发区空间分布格局呈现出外围扩散与局部缩减的动态调整。开发区规模的增长主要集中在重点开发区域,缩减主要发生在生态功能区域。这些新变化将为我国国土空间土地利用优化和国土空间管控实践提供重要参考。     

浙江典型海湾潮间带沉积物污染及生态风险评价

基于浙江4个典型海湾潮间带表层沉积物重金属元素Cu、Zn、Pb、Cr、Cd、Hg、As和多氯联苯（PCB）的调查结果,探究其污染特征、潜在生态风险和来源.结果表明,海湾潮间带表层沉积物Cd、Hg、As、PCB含量均符合国家海洋沉积物质量Ⅰ类标准;42%、9%、3%、12%站位的Cu、Zn、Pb、Cr符合国家海洋沉积物质量II类标准,1%站位的Cu和Zn符合国家海洋沉积物质量III类标准.区域污染程度（PLI_zone）依次为乐清湾 > 三门湾 > 象山港 > 杭州湾,乐清湾潮间带沉积环境为中等污染,杭州湾、象山港和三门湾潮间带沉积环境无污染.区域生态风险（RI）依次为乐清湾 > 杭州湾 > 三门湾 > 象山港,乐清湾和杭州湾潮间带沉积物为中潜在生态风险,三门湾和象山港潮间带沉积物为低潜在生态风险.Cd是首要的潜在生态风险因子,Cd对杭州湾、象山港、三门湾、乐清湾潜在生态风险指数（RI）的贡献分别为63%、54%、58%和55%.生活污水、工农业和交通污染是浙江典型海湾潮间带重金属和PCB的主要来源.     

中国工业园区绿色发展政策对比分析及对策研究

为了提升我国工业园区绿色发展水平,对目前我国工业园区发展历程、现状特征进行了分析,对工业园区绿色发展政策进行了梳理和对比,并结合工业园区绿色发展中存在的问题提出了对策建议.研究表明:①我国工业园区经历了快速发展、调整发展和科学发展等阶段,在经济发展、资源与能源优化利用、污染减排等方面成效显著.②我国工业园区绿色发展的相关政策主要体现在国家生态工业示范园区创建、园区循环化改造、国家低碳工业园区试点、绿色园区建设和UNIDO绿色工业园区创建等工作中,这些政策在推动主体、实施路径、侧重方向上各不相同又各有特色,对推动工业园区节能减排绩效明显.③目前,我国工业园区绿色发展存在的问题主要表现在重视程度有待提升、风险防范意识有待加强、创新能力有待提高等方面.为此,提出了我国工业园区绿色发展对策建议:积极践行绿色发展理念,推进园区绿色化、生态化、低碳化建设,实现经济环境双赢;注意环境风险防控,确保环境安全;创新管理机制,强化监督管理.      

关于在长江经济带布局以水质改善为目标的流域生态缓冲体系的思考

生态缓冲带能够有效减缓流域内的人类活动或自然过程对水环境和水生态系统的影响.在长江经济带构建流域生态缓冲体系,对长江生态保护修复具有十分重要的意义.讨论了构建流域生态缓冲体系涉及的生态缓冲带位置选择、缓冲体系所占最低面积比率、宽度划定等一些基本的原则要求;利用卫星遥感影像数据,提取各汇水单元的地形特征、土地利用类型特征、土壤类型、土壤侵蚀强度、水文水系等数据,对长江经济带流域生态缓冲体系进行布局.结果表明:①长江经济带内林草地是主要土地利用类型,占区域总面积的62.46%,但是分布很不均匀,主要集中在西部高地和中下游的丘陵地带,在人口密集、农田密集的区域分布偏少;城镇用地主要集中在长江中下游地区.②土壤类型空间差异显著,浙江省、江苏省、湖南省、江西省及安徽省大部分区域的土壤多是黏性比较大,污染物迁移能力较低;而污染物迁移能力较强的砂质土或者土层较薄的山地草甸土主要分布在四川省北部、西北部.水力侵蚀、风力侵蚀和冻融侵蚀均有分布,且以水力侵蚀为主,建议在中度及以上侵蚀强度区域尽量减少污染源,重点布置缓冲带,增加该区域的缓冲力度.③长江经济带范围内可以利用的中小型湿地、小型河流支浜的面积至少有1.4×104 km2,再结合林草缓冲带,就可以形成一个生态缓冲体系.④在土地利用类型分布结果基础上,叠加土壤侵蚀强度和水系分布,将污染源区、中度及以上侵蚀强度区、水体区作为缓冲对象,建立缓冲体系的重点区域,总面积约14.26×104 km2,占长江经济带总面积的6.95%.对照欧美地区的研究,6.95%的缓冲体系面积占比是偏低的,需要在长江经济带开展深入研究来确定适宜的缓冲体系面积比,推进长江经济带流域生态缓冲体系的构建.