基于证据法学的环境监测原始记录设计

从证据法学概念的角度浅析了环境监测原始记录的证据范畴,根据其所属范畴的证据要求,归纳了环境监测原始记录的证据要求。结合实例,分析了环境监测原始记录存在的不足,并提出了改进建议。     

Realistic evaluation as a new way to design and evaluate occupational safety interventions

Recent debates regarding the criteria for evaluating occupational health and safety interventions have focused on the need for incorporating qualitative elements and process evaluation, in addition to attempting to live up to the Cochrane criteria. Reflecting fundamental epistemological conflicts and shortcomings of the Cochrane criteria in evaluating intervention studies, the debate challenges the traditional (quasi-) experimental design and methodology, which are often used within safety research. This article discusses a revised ‘realistic evaluation’ approach as a way to meet these challenges.Evidence from the literature as well as examples from an integrated (leader-based/worker-based) safety intervention study (2008-2010) in a large wood manufacturing company are presented, with focus on the pros and cons of using randomised-controlled-trials and a revised realistic evaluation model.A revised realistic evaluation model is provided which includes factors such as role behaviour, leader and worker motivation, underreporting of accidents/injuries, production pressure, unplanned organisational change and accounting for multilayer effects. These can be attained through qualitative and/or quantitative methods, allowing for the use of realistic evaluation in both large and small scale studies, as well as in systematic reviews. The revised realistic evaluation model offers a promising new way of designing and evaluating occupational safety research. This model can help safety science move forward in setting qualitative and/or quantitative criteria regarding context, mechanisms and processes for single studies and for reviews. Focus is not limited to whether the expected results appear or not, but include suggestions for what works for whom, under what circumstances, in what respects and how.     

Effectiveness of Management Interventions to Control Invasion by Rhododendron ponticum

Rhododendron ponticum is an invasive species in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, and France. It poses a serious threat to native flora and fauna, as it is capable of altering entire seminatural communities through its vigorous spread. Control is essential if the conservation value of some communities, such as oak woodland and lowland heath, are to be successfully maintained. Commonly used interventions are herbicide application, herbicide application postcut, and cutting (manual or mechanical) alone. Various techniques have been developed to apply these interventions, but often retreatment of the area is required, increasing the cost of control. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of some commonly used interventions for R. ponticum control using a systematic review methodology. Eleven studies provided data for statistical analysis. Meta-analyses of captured data show that postcut application of the herbicide Glyphosate or applying the herbicides Metsulfuron-methyl or Imazapyr (no cut) can effectively reduce a R. ponticum stand. There is insufficient available experimental evidence for effectiveness of any other intervention. The systematic review process has demonstrated the lack of replicated studies with controls or long-term monitoring and increases the call for more rigorous monitoring of all conservation management interventions. The quality of experimental evidence of the effectiveness of some interventions contrasts with the acceptance of their use through dissemination of experience. The collection and objective review of experience will require active collaboration of organizations concerned with R. ponticum control.     

Barriers to evidence use for sustainability: Insights from pesticide policy and practice

Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.     

船舶污染事故的调查取证与处罚原则

本文根据船舶防污监督管理的内容、特点，系统地提出了船舶·违章排污造成污染事故的调查取证程序、方法、内容、综合分析方法．还阐述了作出处罚决定的内容，防治措施的要求和依法处罚的原则．     

浅议环境污染损害赔偿纠纷的取证和调处

本文简要介绍了环境污染损害赔偿纠纷的一般知识。针对环境污染损害赔偿纠纷中的前提重点是取证和调处，提出了在取证中应注意的问题和证据种类。依据目前的实际情况，对在调处中污染赔偿的责任作了一定探讨和认识。     

Quality Science in the Courtroom: U.S. EPA Data Quality and Peer Review Policies and Procedures Compared to the Daubert Factors

Protection of the environment is critically dependent on the quality of data used in decision making. Whether the decisions are part of the scientific process or relate to application of the laws governing people and their living conditions, good quality data are required/needed by two disciplines with distinct differences. This paper examines some differences between science and the law, provides a brief history of science in law, discusses the effects of law on science, compares United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance and U.S. Supreme Court credible science criteria. This paper further speculates on the future use of science data by the courts.     

A review of Defra's approach to building an evidence base for influencing sustainable behaviour

Defra's approach to influencing people to live sustainably has evolved considerably since 2005 when the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable called for greater efforts by Government to better understand people, and how to influence changes in the way they behave. In response, Defra has developed a substantial evidence base devoted to improving understanding of the drivers for sustainable behaviours and how these can be applied to develop more effective environmental policies and programmes.A core focus of Defra's research programme has been to identify and build on existing research and evidence which has the potential to inform new and innovative policy approaches. In some cases, this has involved work which looks at particular behavioural drivers, such as habits and norms, considering how these insights can inform and improve outcomes from policies that aim to influence citizen's behaviours. Other work has focused on operationalising this knowledge through trials and demonstration projects with an aim of understanding the practical implications of applying them, and measuring the benefits they can provide.This paper reviews the key strands of Defra's behavioural research programme and some of the tools the department has used to apply this research. It considers Defra's work in building an evidence base that can be embedded into policy making and concludes with some insights drawn from this evidence. These address both why people are likely to act and why they might not, and best practice principles for delivering change.     

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N = 92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0–30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decision-makers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base.