In recent years, there has been a boom in environmental assessment reports utilizing environmental indicators. Most of these
publications are based on the casual chain frameworks (e.g., Pressure–State–Response (PSR), Driving force–State–Response (DSR),
and Driving force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR)). These frameworks have made an important contribution by emphasising
the importance of causality. However, the reliance on simple uni-directional chains is at the same time not very conducive
to a good understanding of the complexity of the processes behind environmental indicators. This limits the usefulness of
these frameworks for environmental (impact) assessments. In this paper we propose an enhanced DPSIR (eDPSIR) framework for
environmental indicators that takes inter-relations of indicators into account by relying on the use of causal networks rather
than causal chains. It will be shown how the concept of causal networks can increase insight into the inter-relation of environmental
issues and associated indicators, can facilitate the identification of key indicators for particular kinds of questions, and
can provide a useful first step to the establishment of dose–response functions. Working with causal networks can contribute
to more appropriate environmental policies and better management decisions. 相似文献
Instead of legislating after the Bhopal accident, Canada choose to innovate by adopting a consultative approach. In 1987, Environment Canada set up the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (MIACC), a non profit organization financed by the federal and provincial governments and industry.
MIACC was a process rather than a structure. Governments, industries, responders, trade unions, NGOs, etc. have shared their expertise. It has worked as a partnership for the development of standards, guidance documents, etc. in prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.
MIACC ceased to exist in 1999. Although, MIACC disappearance is unfortunate, it is not dramatic. A culture of partnership, of working together towards common objectives, is now well in place and influences the development of regulations.
Natural disasters and the 911 terrorist attack on New York triggered the publication of regulations.
The legislative process started in 2001 with the Province of Quebec adopting a new Civil Protection Act for the protection of persons and property against disasters.
Year 2003 saw major developments in the regulation of emergencies—changes that are likely to have significant influences on how companies operate in Canada. Surprisingly, however, these changes have received little attention in the media, and many companies may not be aware of their implications.
This paper will review these developments, and will examine what has already taken place. Topics include:
• The federal regulation of environmental emergencies under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act;
• Extension of the Criminal Code of Canada to allow criminal charges and possibly heavy penalties for senior officials and corporations, including an explicit legal duty to protect workers from harm;
• Quebec Civil Protection Act designed to identify and manage risks;
• Ontario‘s stepwise regulation of municipal emergency preparedness with the intended goal of NFPA 1600 compliance by 2007, and the implications for the process industries;
• Potential regulation at the municipal level.
Keywords: Canada; Regulatory framework; Major hazards 相似文献