环境价值的循环模式初探

环境污染对环境产生的负价值与环境保护对环境产生的正价值相互作用、相互抵消的运动过程，体现了环境整体价值在人类经济社会活动影响下的具体演化模式。文章探讨了环境价值的循环途径、环境资源价值的模型，并对模型进行了具体分析，以期帮助人们提高对环境价值的认识。     

一种预测左半部成形极限图的简单方法

板材成形性能的评价一般基于成形极限图(FLD)。然而，无论是经由理论计算还是实验方法来获得成形极限图依然很困难而且很耗时。提出了一种预测深拉延部分成形极限图的新方法。假设对所有钢板来说其成形极限图的形状几乎都是一样的，而深拉延变形区域内其失效厚度应变也几乎一样，据此可利用体积不变原理推导出主应变和次应变之间的关系。结果表明，根据此方法计算的左半侧(拉深应变区)成形极限图与实验获得的FLD基本一致。     

关于小于检出限监测结果表示方法的探讨

在环境监测中，在上报结果小于检出限时，以“未检出”、“零”、“无”或“０００…ｎ”等来表示都是不妥当的，会给环境管理和数据使用带来不良影响，甚至会误导出错误的结论。对于此类结果，应以“小于检出限”表示为好。     

对Janbu普遍条分法计算方法的改进

Janbu普遍条分法(或称严格Janbu法)是第一个基于任意形状滑面且考虑滑体所有平衡条件的边坡稳定性计算方法。该方法存在的严重不收敛问题一直困扰着边坡理论和工程界近半个世纪。本文基于Janbu普遍条分法的基本原理和假设,重新推导出数学上更为简洁的安全系数积分表达式,指出传统计算格式不易收敛性是推力二阶导数的不合理数值误差所致,应用数值平滑技术可减少这个误差,使计算过程稳定收敛。研究表明,改进后的Janbu普遍条分法不失为理论相对严格、工程较为实用的边坡稳定性计算方法。     

Specific Contributions of Politics,Economics, and Toxicology in Setting Socially Consensual Limit Values

/ Limit values are legal limits for the concentrations of substances in the environment. They must be agreed upon in a consensual procedure between science, economics/technology, and political forces. This is a crucial political precondition for their social acceptance. The arguments put forward to justify their expediency and numerical level are based not only on risk-benefit considerations but also on the aspect of the technical avoidability of direct and indirect exposure. The critical assessment of the direct benefit of specified exposures falls within the responsibility of economics/technology, whereas criteria for their potential adverse effects (direct and indirect) are provided by medicine/biochemistry and/or ecology. Within this concept, the avoidance of nonbeneficial-even if not openly adverse-exposure is the essential aim of environmental hygiene and should be promoted by politics/science. In general, society or segments thereof reject adverse, accept beneficial, and tolerate unavoidable exposure. Conflicts of interest arise when different groups of society simultaneously define a given exposure as being adverse, beneficial, and unavoidable. Therefore, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, an optimal exposure lies as far as reasonably achievable at a level lower than known or plausible adverse effect thresholds (as defined by toxicology or ecology). This optimal level of exposure must be determined using a transparent and, hence, public procedure.KEY WORDS: Legal limit values; Benefit threshold; Social acceptance; Social tolerability; Adverse effect threshold; Avoidable exposure; Tolerance threshold; Environmental hygiene     

Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment

The present study focuses on the definition and assessment of overpressure threshold values for the damage to equipment caused by blast waves originated by primary accidental scenarios. A revision of literature data and of the available damage probability models was carried out. Threshold values were proposed for different categories of process equipment, taking into account either damage levels or release intensities following the loss of containment. Specific threshold values for domino effect were also proposed.     

基于速度的交通事故分析

速度对交通事故的发生以及严重程度有着直接影响,是道路交通事故的重要诱因之一。为了准确地反映速度与事故之间的关系,减轻由于速度因素所造成的交通事故的损失,笔者对国内外速度与交通安全的情况进行分析;研究了平均速度与事故危险性、速度离散度与事故率以及速度与事故严重性的关系;提出了加强速度管理,控制交通流平均速度和减小相邻路段的速度差值的对策。基于速度的交通事故分析,建议采用85%位车速作为控制速度的上限值;提出限速措施,以达到减少交通事故及其损失的目的。     

Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new‐conservation debate

A vibrant debate about the future direction of biodiversity conservation centers on the merits of the so‐called new conservation. Proponents of the new conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human‐dominated landscapes and conservation's engagement with capitalism. These have been fiercely contested in a debate dominated by a few high‐profile individuals, and so far there has been no empirical exploration of existing perspectives on these issues among a wider community of conservationists. We used Q methodology to examine empirically perspectives on the new conservation held by attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). Although we identified a consensus on several key issues, 3 distinct positions emerged: in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations, in favor of biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on wilderness protection than prominent opponents of new conservation, and in favor of the published new conservation perspective but with less emphasis on increasing human well‐being as a goal of conservation. Our results revealed differences between the debate on the new conservation in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community and demonstrated the existence of at least one viewpoint (in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope the fuller understanding we present of the variety of views that exist but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the subject.     

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.     

The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species

There now appears to be a plausible pathway for reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or even millennia. I conducted an ethical analysis of de‐extinction of long extinct species. I assessed several possible ethical considerations in favor of pursuing de‐extinction: that it is a matter of justice; that it would reestablish lost value; that it would create new value; and that society needs it as a conservation last resort. I also assessed several possible ethical arguments against pursuing de‐extinction: that it is unnatural; that it could cause animal suffering; that it could be ecologically problematic or detrimental to human health; and that it is hubristic. There are reasons in favor of reviving long extinct species, and it can be ethically acceptable to do so. However, the reasons in favor of pursuing de‐extinction do not have to do with its usefulness in species conservation; rather, they concern the status of revived species as scientific and technological achievements, and it would be ethically problematic to promote de‐extinction as a significant conservation strategy, because it does not prevent species extinctions, does not address the causes of extinction, and could be detrimental to some species conservation efforts. Moreover, humanity does not have a responsibility or obligation to pursue de‐extinction of long extinct species, and reviving them does not address any urgent problem. Therefore, legitimate ecological, political, animal welfare, legal, or human health concerns associated with a de‐extinction (and reintroduction) must be thoroughly addressed for it to be ethically acceptable. La Ética de Revivir Especies Extintas Hace Mucho Tiempo Sandler