长江经济带突发水污染风险分区研究

长江经济带突发水污染事件频发,对区域人群健康和生态安全造成严峻挑战.环境风险分区是环境风险管理的基础和有效工具.本研究以2015年为基准年,基于环境统计数据、DEM数据、水质监测断面数据和基础地理数据,综合考虑了水系流向、水系级别及水质等因素,以1 km×1 km的网格为基本单元,对长江经济带开展突发水污染风险分区.结果表明:①高风险区面积为3348.9 km~2,占评估区总面积的0.16%;较高风险区面积为26030.7 km~2,占比1.27%;中风险区面积为97971.1 km~2,占比4.79%;低风险区面积为1916838.7 km~2,占比93.77%;②从沿长江干流两岸分布来看,高风险区面积沿长江上游至下游呈逐渐增加趋势,主要集中分布在重庆市中部、湖北省东部、安徽省东部、江苏省中西部、浙江省北部、上海市西部等地;③从沿长江主要支流两岸分布来看,高风险区主要分布在嘉陵江南段、乌江南段、汉水东段、湘江北段、赣江北段等.研究结果可为长江经济带生态环境管理提供科学依据.     

基于全过程治理的环境规制减排机制研究——来自长江经济带数据的实证检验

基于2007~2017年长江经济带11个省市的面板数据,利用中介效应模型探究全过程治理视域下政府主导型和市场激励型2类环境规制的减排机制.研究发现,政府主导型环境规制和市场激励型环境规制对SO₂排放均具有显著的抑制作用,其影响系数分别为-0.154和-0.209.其中政府主导型环境规制在源头防控、过程控制和末端治理的全过程都起到显著的减排效应,而市场激励型环境规制只通过末端治理实现减排.因此,尽管市场激励型环境规制具有低成本、高效率的优点,但考虑到源头防控和过程控制在生态环境保护中发挥的根本性作用,对于经济结构和经济发展方式较为落后的地区和行业,仍要重视以政府为主导的环境规制,通过因地制宜、合理科学地运用环境规制工具以实现高效的全过程污染治理.     

Climate change policy and water resources in the EU and Spain. A closer look into the Water Framework Directive

Climate change effects are becoming evident worldwide, with serious regional and local impacts. The European Union (EU) has launched and developed initiatives and policies that scratch the surface of water resources impacts. This article presents an introduction of the existing environmental policy and more concisely in the areas of climate change and the interactions with water resources. It also addresses main management tools, and plans linked to policies, recent updates on the Science–Policy Interface, highlighting major results from research and development projects. Establishing appropriate policies to tackle climate change impacts on water is essential given the cross-sectorial and flowing nature and the importance of water in all environmental, social and economic sectors. There are still some pending reviews and updates in the current EU policy and its implementation, as well as at the national level in Spain. This article identifies existing gaps, and provides recommendations on how and where reforms could take place and be applied by decision makers in the water policy sector.     

基于多准则决策的长江经济带国土空间脆弱性与恢复力研究

科学评估国土空间脆弱性与恢复力并解释其时空分布特征,能为国土空间开发与保护相关决策提供参考。采用综合指数法和有序加权平均(Ordered Weighted Averaging, OWA)法分别评价和模拟长江经济带市域国土空间脆弱性及国土空间恢复力,并对二者的组合情况进行综合分析。结果表明:(1)2008-2017年间长江经济带国土空间脆弱性指数有明显下降趋势,累计下降率为16.49%,脆弱性指数从西向东逐步下降;(2)长江经济带"生态优先型""维持现状型""开发优先型"政策情景下国土空间恢复力分别处于较高(占47.22%)、中等(占35.19%)、低恢复力(占99.07%)水平;(3)长江经济带国土空间以低脆弱性—中等恢复力、低脆弱性—较低恢复力为主导,占30.63%,国土空间整体脆弱性低,恢复力处于较低至中等水平。     

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...     

基于SVR的长江经济带水环境承载力评价

基于DPSIRM模型构建区域水环境承载力评价指标体系,并基于SVR模型构建了区域水环境承载力评价模型,利用交叉验证法对SVR模型参数进行优化选择,进一步提高模型预测精度.运用该模型研究了长江经济带2009~2018年的水环境承载力演变趋势及空间差异,结果表明：长江经济带水环境承载力等级整体呈现升高趋势,其中上游城市群承载等级由II级（超载）提升到了IV级（弱可承载）;中游城市群承载等级由II级（超载）提升到了IV级（弱可承载）;下游长三角区域承载等级由I级（重超载）提升到了IV级（弱可承载）.将评价结果与熵权-TOPSIS法的评价结果相比较,相同率达到91.7%,说明SVR模型评价区域水环境承载力可行,评价结果可靠.以下游区域为例,分别对其6个子系统的承载力进行剖析,并运用单因素轮换OAT法对各子系统内的评价指标进行敏感性分析,便于决策者识别指标敏感性.     

论生物多样性的价值

从经济学角度论述了生物多样性的价值 ,并从三方面论述了生物多样性受到的威胁可能会给人类带来的危害 ,从经济价值角度揭示了保护生物多样性的重要意义。     

关于安全投资效益目标函数的建立和优化

通过对安全投资与事故经济损失的规律性的分析研究，确立安全投资与经济效益的内在关系，进一步探索在我国现有财力和安全水平的基础上，找准安全投资的投向，优化安全投资的合理分配，从而实现最大限度地提高企业安全生产水平和安全投资效益。为政府部门或企业提供一套经过优化、科学合理、操作性又比较强的安全投资方案，供各级领导进行安全决策，实现本部门、本单位的安全投资计划时参考     

The resource curse revisited and revised: A tale of paradoxes and red herrings

We critically evaluate the empirical basis for the so-called resource curse and find that, despite the topic's popularity in economics and political science research, this apparent paradox may be a red herring. The most commonly used measure of “resource abundance” can be more usefully interpreted as a proxy for “resource dependence”—endogenous to underlying structural factors. In multiple estimations that combine resource abundance and dependence, institutional, and constitutional variables, we find that (i) resource abundance, constitutions, and institutions determine resource dependence, (ii) resource dependence does not affect growth, and (iii) resource abundance positively affects growth and institutional quality.     

The idea of sustainable development

In this lecture, I demonstrate how very different macroeconomic history begins to look if Nature is included as a capital asset in production activities. The tentative conclusions I draw from the evidence are: (1) high population growth in the world’s poorest regions (South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa) has been an obstacle to the achievement of sustainable economic development there; relatedly, (2) when population growth is taken into account, the accumulation of manufactured capital, knowledge, and human capital (health and education) has not compensated for the degradation of natural capital in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa and, in all probability, even in the UK and the US; (3) China is possibly an exception to (1) and (2). This article is based on the Keynote Lecture delivered at the international symposium on “Sustainability in an Unequal World”, held in Tokyo on November 24, 2006. The exposition relies on my book, Economics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007. The author is the Frank Ramsey Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.