生态补偿的逻辑基础与法律价值目标研究

生态补偿是解决生态环境问题的1个具体制度,其本质上是对经济利益和生态资源的分配和调整.从现实和理论2个方面分析了生态补偿的逻辑基础,阐明分配正义和可持续发展是其法律价值目标,这种价值目标体现了人与自然以及人与人之间的1种新的主客体价值认识,并呈现出分配正义和可持续发展之间的递进关系.     

可持续发展观中的和谐环境伦理意蕴

从把握可持续发展观中的和谐环境伦理意蕴入手,就找到了解读可持续发展观内涵的一个很好的突破口。可持续发展观内涵中具有丰富的和谐环境伦理思想。可持续发展观主张“人与自然的协调发展”与和谐环境伦理意蕴是趋同的;可持续发展观主张“经济发展与资源开发利用的协调发展”与和谐环境伦理意蕴是一致的;可持续发展观主张“人类世代永续长存”与和谐环境伦理是相符的;可持续发展观主张可持续发展应成为“全球性问题”与和谐环境伦理意蕴是相适应的。     

Overqualification and counterproductive work behaviors: Examining a moderated mediation model

The current study examined the effect of employees' perceived overqualification on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Building on person–job fit theory and prior research on such organizational phenomena, we conceptualized overqualification as a type of poor person–job fit. Drawing on the dual‐process model, we further suggested that in processing their person–job misfit, overqualified employees might cognitively appraise themselves as less worthy organizational members and experientially feel angry toward the employment situation. We also suggested that to the extent that overqualified people are sensitive to justice, they may react more or less strongly to being overqualified. We tested our predictions using time‐lagged data from a sample of 224 workers and their supervisors employed in a large manufacturing company in China. Consistent with our theoretical framework, we found that organization‐based self‐esteem (OBSE) and anger toward employment situation mediated the positive relationships between perceived overqualification and both self‐rated and supervisor‐rated CWBs. In addition, justice sensitivity moderated the relationship between perceived overqualification and the mediators (i.e., OBSE and anger) and the indirect relationship between perceived overqualification and CWB. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings as well as future research directions are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

生态移民迁入地的环境正义思考研究

生态移民政策越来越受到相关政府部门和学者的青睐和关注.然而,大批生态移民的突然介入,当地居民必须让渡一部分生态环境资源给迁入者,原有的资源分配秩序被打破,环境承载压力加剧,从而造成迁入地的生态破坏,影响迁入地后代人的环境资源权益.在这种生态移民与环境正义相冲突的矛盾下,以生态移民迁入地为切入点,以环境正义为视角,论述生态移民对于迁入地的环境正义的不利影响,进而提出切实可行的冲突解决措施十分必要.     

Ethics and biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. These ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions, 5 ethical objections in the scientific literature were identified: offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; too little is known to make adequate trades; offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and offsetting has negative justice implications. We examined these objections and arguments against them based on the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism, and deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical paradigms. Both nonanthropocentric and anthropocentric concerns were expressed in deontological, consequential, and virtue-ethical framings. Objections mostly had a deontological or virtue-ethical basis, whereas counterarguments were based on consequential reasoning, but common ground in practice is often conceivable. Based on our findings, we formulated 10 recommendations for policy makers and 5 questions for practitioners to consider. We propose, for example, that policy makers clarify aims, legislate on no-go areas, and govern the use of multipliers. We suggest that practitioners consider, for instance, how to improve case-specific knowledge and promote learning and stakeholder engagement. We hope these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets and ultimately strengthen the respect for biodiversity and human-welfare values at stake in offsetting projects.     

从典型碳排放权分配方案探析“气候公平”的发展方向

在保证全球气候安全的前提下,如何公平分配有限的碳排放空间,是全球气候治理与气候谈判关注的焦点问题。对发展中国家而言,国际社会对碳排放权的公平分配不仅涉及到环境问题,更关系到它们的发展权益与成本。在对"气候公平"理论的主流观点、碳排放权分配的若干"公平原则"进行述评的基础上,通过对中外典型的碳排放权分配方案的梳理和剖析,探讨了"气候公平"从"祖父原则"到"人均公平"、从"人均公平"到"人均累计公平"、从"人均累计公平"到兼顾"人均累计公平"与"可持续发展"、从"生产型排放公平"到"消费型排放公平"、从"排放公平"到"发展公平"的发展方向,并从碳排放权公平分配的角度探讨了如何保证未来全球气候安全、满足人类基本需求的碳排放、发展中国家可持续发展的"三赢"。     

Making a case for the consideration of trust,justice, and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socioecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. The conservation trust literature provides examples of efforts to build trust between conservationists and local actors; yet, these interventions are often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that when trust building is promoted as a technical fix that does not plan in advance to address power asymmetries in conservation practice, inequities may inadvertently be re-embedded. Therefore, we conceptualized a framework that joins trust, justice, and power so that critical analyses of conservation partnerships can be more effectively undertaken. We drew on environmental justice theory to better calibrate the trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. Justice and trust share strong theoretical links where perceptions of justice shape a willingness to trust, and, equally, trust is a precondition for justice to be perceived. Different forms of trust connect to varied domains of justice and power in different ways, which mediates the outcomes of interventions. We applied our framework to case studies to explore how these interdependences play out in practice. Failure of agencies to attend to issues of maldistribution, misrecognition of cultural values and knowledge, and exclusion from participation strongly compromised trust. Moreover, the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions under which they give trust, can lead to partnerships being perceived as just or unjust. Focusing on trust and justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be addressed more readily and create space for alternative understandings of partnerships.