中国经济的“阿基米德支点”

资源是经济发展的“阿基米德支点”：世界十大经济国每年能源的生产占全球的６２．１％，消费为７１．０％。重要矿产资源的生产多排在世界前１０名生产国之，外面是消费则多排在１０名之内，且对这些矿产资源的消费量多在９５％以上。     

我国矿产资源态势与对策

我国矿产资源总量大,居世界第3位人均拥有量小,居世界第80位。我国要实现现代化建设的第二步战略目标,矿产资源供需存在着矛盾。为了解决供需矛盾,必须从地质找矿、矿山、一次资源回收、二次资源回收、节能和节材等方面挖掘潜力。改革资源耗费型经济发展旧模式,确立资源节约型经济发展新模式,废止“有水快流”的方针,确立开发与节约并重的方针,是缓解矿产资源供需矛盾的根本途径。具体对策有:(1)依靠科学技术进步开发节约(2)搞好资源进出口贸易取长补短(3)健全法制管理体系依法治矿(4)用好计划机制管好资源和矿山(5)用好市场机制搞活矿业经济。     

The evolution of sustainability

Six separate but related strains of thought have emerged prominently since 1950 in discussions of such phenomena as the interrelationships among rates of population growth, resource use, and pressure on the environment. They are the ecological/carrying capacity root, the resources/environment root, the biosphere root, the critique of technology root, the no growth/slow growth root, and the ecodevelopment root.Each of these strains of thought was fully developed before the word sustainable itself was used. Many of the roots are based on fundamentally opposing assessments of the future of mankind. Many of the roots, such as the ecology/carrying capacity root, are based on physical concepts, and they exclude normative values. Others, such as the ecodevelopment root, include such values as equity, broad participation in governance, and decentralized government.When the word sustainability was first used in 1972 in the context of man's future, in a British book,Blueprint for Survival, normative concepts were prominent. This continued to be the case when the word was first used in 1974 in the United States to justify a no growth economy.Sustainability was first used in a United Nations document in 1978. Normative concepts, encapsulated in the term ecodevelopment, were prominent in the United Nations publications.After about 1978, the term sustainability began to be used not only in technological articles and reports but also in policy documents culminating in the use of the term in the report of the summit meeting of the Group of Seven in 1989.The roots of the term sustainability are so deeply embedded in fundamentally different concepts, each of which has valid claims to validity, that a search for a single definition seems futile. The existence of multiple meaning is tolerable if each analyst describes clearly what he means by sustainability.     

Co-ordination for disasters

This paper was prepared in 1978 on the basis of a review of sociological and anthropological fieldwork conducted up to that time. Although theoretical in presentation its conclusions are formulated in accordance with the author's own extensive observations of organizational response to natural disasters in developing countries, especially those having sudden onset. Practical implications for co-ordination agencies and pre-disaster training are drawn.     

面向国土空间规划的“双评价”：挑战与应对

面向国土空间规划的科学性、可操作性、层级性等内涵,探讨了资源环境承载能力评价和国土空间开发适宜性评价（“双评价”）与国土空间规划之间的基本逻辑问题、应用挑战与应对方法。通过系统梳理“双评价”的理论发展和相关政策响应,剖析了“双评价”在应用探索、内涵扩充、系统支撑三个阶段的研究重点和服务目标,阐明了承载力评价与适宜性评价之间关联逻辑的演进历程。总结了当前“双评价”在应用上的几个关键挑战：一是“双评价”应用于“三区三线”划定的逻辑尚未明确;二是当前承载能力评价与未来规划决策之间存在逻辑悖论;三是“双评价”在不同层级国土空间规划中传导失灵;四是两个评价之间的关联逻辑仍存在争议。为此,提出了应对“双评价”挑战的四点建议：深化理论认知、拓展评价维度、建立传导机制、厘清内在关系,以提升“双评价”对国土空间规划决策的支撑能力。     

生态文明视角下的国土空间底线管控：“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警

生态文明新时代下的空间规划体系对国土空间底线管控提出了明确要求,“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警是底线思维的体现。研究“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警在国土空间底线管控中的作用和地位,通过国土空间规划“一张图”实施监督信息系统的建设,对二者的联系及其相互作用进行体现,构建二者的联动方式,服务于国土空间底线管控及治理的全过程。“双评价”与国土空间规划监测评估预警共同组成底线管控的两个阶段,前者是开展底线管控的基础,后者是底线管控的路径和手段,两者皆是生态文明新时代下国土空间规划底线管控的重要工具,需以国土空间规划“一张图”实施监督信息系统为基础加强两者的有机结合。     

Bioassay: A useful tool for evaluating reclaimed water safety

Wastewater reclamation and reuse has been proved to be an effective way to relieve the fresh water crisis. However, toxic contaminants remaining in reclaimed water could lead to potential risk for reuse, and the conventional water quality standards have difficulty guaranteeing the safety of reclaimed water. Bioassays can vividly reflect the integrated biological effects of multiple toxic substances in water as a whole, and could be a powerful tool for evaluating the safety of reclaimed water. Therefore, in this study, the advantages and disadvantages of using bioassays for evaluating the safety of reclaimed water were compared with those of conventional water quality standards. Although bioassays have been widely used to describe the toxic effects of reclaimed water and treatment efficiency of reclamation techniques, a single bioassay cannot reflect the complex toxicity of reclaimed water, and a battery of bioassays involving multiple biological effects or in vitro tests with specific toxicity mechanisms would be recommended. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the safety of reclaimed water based on bioassay results, various methods including potential toxicology, the toxicity unit classification system, and a potential eco-toxic effects probe are summarized as well. Especially, some integrated ranking methods based on a bioassay battery involving multiple toxicity effects are recommended as useful tools for evaluating the safety of reclaimed water, which will benefit the promotion and guarantee the rapid development of the reclamation and reuse of wastewater.     

An investigation of changes in water quality throughout the drinking water production/distribution chain using toxicological and fluorescence analyses

Changes in water quality from source water to finished water and tap water at two conventional drinking water treatment plants(DWTPs) were monitored.Beside the routine water quality testing,Caenorhabditis elegans-based toxicity assays and the fluorescence excitation–emission matrices technique were also applied.Both DWTPs supplied drinking water that met government standards.Under current test conditions,both the investigated finished water and tap water samples exhibited stronger lethal,genotoxic and reprotoxic potential than the relative source water sample,and the tap water sample was more lethal but tended to be less genotoxic than the corresponding finished water sample.Meanwhile,the nearly complete removal of tryptophan-like substances and newly generated tyrosine-like substances were observed after the treatment of drinking water,and humic-like substances were identified in the tap water.Based on these findings,toxic pollutants,including genotoxic/reproductive toxicants,are produced in the drinking water treatment and/or distribution processes.Moreover,further studies are needed to clarify the potentially important roles of tyrosine-like and humic-like substances in mediating drinking water toxicity and to identify the potential sources of these contaminants.Additionally,tryptophan-like fluorescence may be adopted as a useful parameter to monitor the treatment performance of DWTPs.Our observations provided insights into the importance of utilizing biotoxicity assays and fluorescence spectroscopy as tools to complement the routine evaluation of drinking water.     

新时代国土整治与生态修复转型思考

针对全球变化影响下的国土空间和生态系统,生态文明建设和国土空间规划是中国在新时代的积极响应,国土整治与生态修复的转型和提升成为必然要求。在介绍国土整治与生态修复概念内涵的基础上,指出中国国土空间生态环境问题的复杂性和生态文明建设的新理念要求决定了国土整治与生态修复的转型。从工作理念、理论基础、技术体系和制度建设等方面,分析了当前国土整治与生态修复工作中存在的不足,主要包括整体综合理念滞后、理论基础体系欠缺、技术支撑相对薄弱、体制机制不尽完善等方面。针对这些不足,提出了新时代国土整治与生态修复转型的路径和策略,主要策略包括强化系统思维、提升理论体系、加强技术支撑、完善机制建设等内容,以期为国土整治与生态修复推进美丽中国建设提供科学依据。     

中国“四化”建设对水足迹强度的影响分析

采用2000—2016年中国30省市（不包括香港、澳门、台湾、西藏四省区）的数据,构建四化指标体系,计算四化发展指数,进行地区四化水平评价,通过OLS和GMM回归模型考察四化发展对水足迹强度的影响,同时设置四化之间的交互项来识别四化指标之间的相互作用。主要结论如下：首先,从四化水平的地域发展差异上来看,中国四化水平总体上呈现出东部优于中部、中部优于西部的格局,水足迹强度的分布与之类似,说明四化水平发展与水足迹强度之间可能存在相关关系;其次,计量模型显示四化水平的提升对于水足迹强度的改善有积极影响,但每一化对于水足迹强度改善的影响大小不一;第三,以交互项衡量的四化相互作用对于水足迹强度的影响作用为正,表明四化发展对水足迹强度的改善效果逐渐趋于收敛。因此,优先提升落后地区的四化水平,以四化水平的提升推动水足迹强度的降低,能够有效降低我国总体水足迹强度水平。