海河流域社会经济发展对河流水质的影响

海河流域社会经济快速发展,主要河流水质恶化.本文基于海河流域人口规模、经济产值和土地利用变化过程,结合河流社会经济发展指标和水质变化统计分析,从流域废污水排放和水资源利用等角度分析社会经济对水环境影响机制.研究表明,流域人口规模大幅增长、工业生产强度大幅提高,工业聚集区由北京-天津地区扩展到北京-天津-唐山、石家庄、聊城-德州等地区,导致海河流域工业废水和生活污水排放规模迅速上升,成为河流水质恶化直接驱动力.城市扩张是流域土地利用变化最显著特征,近30年来城市用地面积增加85%,北京-天津-唐山城市群规模扩大,造成流域水资源开发利强度加剧,降低河流自净缓冲能力.因子分析表明,流域影响河流水质因素分解为农村、城市和自然等3个方面,其中城市化过程和农村社会经济发展对河流水体污染物浓度水平影响非常显著.     

立足环保建设节约型社会

通过对我国现阶段能源、资源的需求、可采储量、资源结构等现状分析,提出建设节约型社会是实现经济社会可持续发展的必要措施和举措.明确了建设节约型社会的意义后,即而从四个方面阐述了从环境保护和环境管理角度,建设资源节约型社会的主要做法.     

从环境-社会系统的角度看"建设和谐社会"

环境-社会系统的三元结构是指人、社会和自然三元。可持续发展取决于对这三元运动机制的协调。从环境-社会系统的视角看。可持续发展是指通过三种生产的和谐运行与环境—社会系统的稳定演进．获得“经济-社会-环境”整体的高效益。人类社会发展的两大基本矛盾是资源生产的矛盾和资源配置的矛盾．因此。建设和谐社会的关键在于：在争取“人-社会-自然”和谐演进的前提下。处理好人与社会、人与自然、自然与社会以及自然的、社会的方方面面的“关系”。     

基于“两型社会”的武汉城市圈土地集约利用评价

以获批全国"两型社会"建设综合配套改革试验区的武汉城市圈为研究对象,以"资源节约和环境保护"为目标,综合考虑土地集约利用的环境、社会、经济效应,阐述了土地集约利用的内涵,依据投入-产出等理论,构建了武汉城市圈土地集约利用评价体系,利用数据包络分析(简称DEA)法,对武汉城市圈土地集约利用进行了评价。研究结果表明:①武汉城市圈中仅有武汉、仙桃、天门三个城市是DEA有效的,DEA无效的6个城市DEA有效性从高到低分别是为黄冈、孝感、潜江、咸宁、鄂州、黄石;②影响武汉城市圈中城市DEA无效的因素是多样的,但主要集中在固定资产投资和单位GDP能耗等投入过多,GDP、社会商品销售额、财政收入、就业人员、生活垃圾处理率等产出率低。文章根据评价结果结合实际情况分析并指出了武汉城市圈发展过程中出现的土地利用问题,进而探讨"两型社会"框架下武汉城市圈应如何集约利用土地,优化配置土地资源,以实现"资源节约和环境保护"的目标。     

长江经济带入境旅游经济时空格局动态性——基于ESDA&GWR法

以5 a为时间间隔,运用ESDA法采用旅游外汇收入平均增长量和平均增长率指标,研究长江经济带126个市域单元2000~2015年入境旅游经济的空间格局演化特征,运用GWR法分析入境旅游经济影响因素的空间异质性。结果表明：（1）长江经济带旅游外汇收入平均增长量莫兰指数经历了 0.164 6~0.164 1~0.057 2的变化趋势,增量相似市域由较强集聚向较弱集聚转化,市域旅游经济增长趋于均衡。一级热点区始终位于江浙沿海市域。一级冷点区由研究区中部向苏北转移,空间范围大大缩小。（2）长江经济带旅游外汇收入平均增长率莫兰指数表现为 0.098 6~0.293 1~0.198 9 的变化趋势,市域之间旅游经济增长关联程度增强,总体差异逐渐缩小。一级冷热点区大幅度转移,同时热点区范围大幅度扩大。后期热点市域数量大大超过冷点市域数量。（3）入境旅游发展较为落后的湖南省、云南省增长速度最快,长三角城市群所属市域始终是入境旅游经济增长最活跃的地区。     

风险社会中突发事件的特征与处置理念探析

突发性事件由于其本身所具有突发性、紧急性、危重性、复杂性、关联性、广泛性、政治性和不确定性等特征，所以其负面性影响很大，往往可能成为激发社会矛盾、进而爆发政治、经济和社会危机的直接原因。而经济转轨、社会转型、利益群体多元化等许多不稳定的因素，对局部地区乃至全国的经济发展和社会稳定构成了潜在威胁。在这样一个具有诸多风险因素的社会，由此而引发的突发事件又有形式多元化、规模扩大化、形态群体化、影响辐射化、目标国际化等特点。所以，在现阶段，处置突发事件的理念必须适应这种风险社会的公共危机特点，做到危机缓和，未病先防；以人为本，取信于民；利益调和，治病求本。     

Incentives to improve farm management: EMS, supply-chains and civil society

This paper focuses on impediments to environmentally sound management practices and how these might be overcome, with an emphasis on the role of environmental management systems, supply chains and civil society. It argues that: Farmers are under increased pressure to cut costs and improve production but with little opportunity to increase prices. Commonly short-term economic interest has damaging environmental implications. Current government policy, in Australia and in many other jurisdictions, relies heavily on voluntary arrangements, education and information, as the main policy instruments through which to persuade farmers to adopt better environmental farm management - e.g. the recent push to encourage the use of voluntary environmental management systems. However, there is good evidence to suggest that these can only make a valuable contribution when combined with a range of other policy instruments, including positive and negative incentives, intervention by third parties and in some cases, an underpinning of regulation. Arguably, what is needed is a strategy that builds on the strengths of voluntary environmental management arrangements while compensating for their weaknesses by combining them with other, complementary policy instruments. If so, we must engage with a range of questions that have not so far figured substantially in the policy debate. Although the principal focus has been on the role of government in bringing about on-farm change in management practices, supply chain pressure (at least in respect of agricultural chemicals and practices which threaten food safety) and civil society action are also potentially powerful mechanisms for bringing about change. Government can and should play a role in harnessing such forces in the interests of improved environmental on-farm practices.     

Disembodied and Disembedded? The Social and Economic Implications of Atmospheric Change and Biodiversity

The social and economic implications of atmospheric change on biodiversity need to be seen in a global context of major shifts in the conceptualization and management of our relationship with nature. Traditionally, we have conceptualized the atmosphere and the other creatures of the biosphere as separate from the human, but their quasi-autonomy is now becoming subject to more and more human management. This raises not only economic issues, but social, political, and ethical concerns that will have substantial influence on public policy. Among these are the commodification of genetic material; the privatization of traditional knowledge; and the management of information. In this broader context, the paper examines an array of current and proposed strategies of response to changes in biodiversity as a result of climatic and other stresses.     

加强生态保护,维护国家生态安全

在详细论述生态安全概念和内涵的基础上,阐述了维护国家生态安全在保障国家安全、维持中华民族的生存与发展和维护人民群众切身利益等方面的重要性,分析了我国面临的环境严重污染、生态赤字扩大、物种资源破坏和自然灾害频发等方面严峻的生态安全形势,提出了规范国土空间开发秩序、完善生态保护政策法规、建立生态监测评价体系、强化资源开发环境监管和提高全民生态安全意识等维护国家生态安全的对策措施。     

Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management in Different Jurisdictions

The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) requires forest resource managers to monitor and collect information pertaining to their environmental, economic and social impact. There are increasing expectations from a variety of publics (government, customers, and other stakeholders) that forests be demonstrably well-managed, creating incentives for forest managers to design credible systems for assessing their management performance. It is against this background that local, national and international approaches to regulating forest practices have been evolving. This article reviews the different dimensions of governance as they relate to monitoring and information reporting in the forest sector. Specifically, it discusses the changing role of sovereignty, the effects of globalization and the emergence of civil society stakeholders in forestry-related decision-making. Concepts such as sovereignty and globalization have important implications for monitoring forest practices and for defining SFM. Whether SFM standard creation and enforcement involves a sovereign, shared-sovereignty or civil society approach will affect the level and nature of SFM monitoring. As a result, we need to better consider the concept of monitoring appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, how monitoring and information reporting standards differ between jurisdictions, and what this means for independently verifying SFM at an inter-jurisdictional level.