Understanding implications of consumer behavior for wildlife farming and sustainable wildlife trade

Unsustainable wildlife trade affects biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent upon those resources. Wildlife farming has been proposed to promote sustainable trade, but characterizing markets and understanding consumer behavior remain neglected but essential steps in the design and evaluation of such operations. We used sea turtle trade in the Cayman Islands, where turtles have been farm raised for human consumption for almost 50 years, as a case study to explore consumer preferences toward wild‐sourced (illegal) and farmed (legal) products and potential conservation implications. Combining methods innovatively (including indirect questioning and choice experiments), we conducted a nationwide trade assessment through in‐person interviews from September to December 2014. Households were randomly selected using disproportionate stratified sampling, and responses were weighted based on district population size. We approached 597 individuals, of which 37 (6.2%) refused to participate. Although 30% of households had consumed turtle in the previous 12 months, the purchase and consumption of wild products was rare (e.g., 64–742 resident households consumed wild turtle meat [i.e., 0.3–3.5% of households] but represented a large threat to wild turtles in the area due to their reduced populations). Differences among groups of consumers were marked, as identified through choice experiments, and price and source of product played important roles in their decisions. Despite the long‐term practice of farming turtles, 13.5% of consumers showed a strong preference for wild products, which demonstrates the limitations of wildlife farming as a single tool for sustainable wildlife trade. By using a combination of indirect questioning, choice experiments, and sales data to investigate demand for wildlife products, we obtained insights about consumer behavior that can be used to develop conservation‐demand‐focused initiatives. Lack of data from long‐term social–ecological assessments hinders the evaluation of and learning from wildlife farming. This information is key to understanding under which conditions different interventions (e.g., bans, wildlife farming, social marketing) are likely to succeed.     

Exploring Chemical Variables in Ligustrum lucidum Ait. F. Tricolor (Rehd.) Rehd. in Relation to Air Pollutants and Environmental Conditions

Ligustrum lucidum Ait. f. tricolor (Rehd.) Rehd. in relation to atmospheric pollutants in Córdoba city, Argentina. The study area receives regional pollutants and was categorized taking into account traffic level, industrial density, type of industry, location of the sample point in relation to the street corner, treeless condition, and topographic level. Dried weight/fresh weight ratio (DW/FW) and specific leaf area (SLA) were calculated, and concentrations of chlorophylls, carotenoids, total sulfur, soluble proteins, malondialdehyde (MDA), and hydroperoxy conjugated dienes (HPCD) were determined in leaf samples. Sulfur content correlates positively with traffic density and SLA correlates negatively with some combinations of the categorical variables; MDA correlates positively with topographic level and total protein concentration correlates negatively with treeless condition. On the basis of our results, traffic, location of trees, type of industry, situation of a tree with respect to others, and topographic level are the environmental variables to bear in mind when selecting analogous sampling points in a passive monitoring program. An approximation to predict tree injury may be obtained by measuring DW/FW ratio, proteins, pigments, HPCD, and MDA as they are responsible for the major variability of data.     

草原旅游发展中旅游管理部门环境意识的调查研究

根据环境意识结构．设计了旅游管理部门环境意识调查问卷。其主要的指标体系包括：旅游环境知识水平、旅游环境态度、旅游环境评价和旅游环境行为四个方面。对指标体系各部分之间以及每一指标部分的每一题目之间的相对重要性进行权重的确定．而且对各部分的每道题目的各个选项予以赋分。基于权重和赋分．结合调查问卷的实际情况，设计了指标体系各部分评价模型和环境意识总体评价模型。以此来计算草原旅游发展中旅游管理部门环境意识水平的综合得分。经过分析得知，旅游管理部门环境意识模式是“环境知识制约型”模式。     

三江平原地貌因子及其主要环境地质问题

地貌因子有其不可替代的作用和功能,是决定环境的主要因子,是生态地质环境中最积极最活跃的主导支力条件;是生态平衡的重中之重;是生态地质环境的基础,并影响其它因子或成份.如地貌因子或成份发生了变化,其它因子或成份就会发生一系列连锁反应;地貌因子发生变化或失去平衡,其它因子也会发生变化或失去平衡.文本论述了三江平原地貌特征,详细地分析了地貌的作用,阐明了有关地貌的主要环境地质问题.     

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.     

特殊区域地表水环境背景值表征技术方法研究与应用

选取黑龙江省源头水保护区作为研究对象,根据DEM数据对保护区内随机布设的水质监测点控制单元进行划分并提取单元内的相关指标建立监测点背景特性量化模型,基于量化结果提出地表水环境背景值监测方案,建立背景值数据库.选取研究区自然属性指标与空间属性指标,以空间叠置技术与聚类分析方法对研究区地表水进行背景值分区,最终将黑龙江省分为六大地表水水质背景值地理分区,并计算了各分区地表水环境背景值表征范围.表征范围显示：依据现行标准进行水质评价,保护区内水质背景值已超出Ⅱ类水质标准限值.因此,基于水质背景值研究成果提出了考虑背景值影响下的水环境质量评价方法,并将方法应用于研究区,结果表明方法切实可行且优于单因子评价法.研究成果可为区域制定背景值影响下的水环境评价方法提供科学的数据支撑与理论依据.     

长江流域水生态环境安全主要问题、形势与对策

为进一步深化长江流域水生态环境保护的系统性、整体性科学认识,围绕长江水生态环境安全的主要问题及形势进行了剖析,提出了进一步加强长江流域水生态环境安全保障的对策建议.研究表明:在水环境质量方面,磷污染成为制约水质改善的主要影响因素,农业源排放量占比高,但工业源入河对水体的影响更直接,水库群运行带来的水沙条件变化对磷污染沿程演变有明显影响;在水生态健康方面,长江水生生物资源衰退、湖库富营养化格局发生改变、湿地生态功能退化问题突出;在水环境风险方面,化工围江、航运污染风险引起广泛关注.当前长江流域面临着源头区水资源战略储备减少、区域经济发展与生态环境保护双重压力仍较大、水环境质量仍存问题隐患、水生态系统退化态势未得到根本遏制等复杂且严峻的形势,未来长江水生态环境安全保障仍有诸多挑战.建议统筹长江全流域“一盘棋”,推进区域绿色协调发展,强化磷污染点面源综合管控,着力提升水生态健康水平,同时加快水环境风险隐患排查整治,强化科技创新有效供给.      

长江口海域生态环境状况及保护对策

为加快推进长江口海域的生态环境保护和修复工作,结合长江经济带大保护,系统总结分析了近20年长江口环境质量和生态监控区的监测结果.结果表明:①长江口海域生态系统长期处于亚健康状态.②长江径流总量呈现波动变化,年均流量无明显的变化,而长江口海域海水环境状况一直较差.③营养盐污染严重,主要污染物是无机氮和活性磷酸盐;浮游生物和底栖生物群落结构不稳定,存在生境破碎化严重、外来生物入侵、赤潮频发、低氧区等诸多生态问题.为加强长江口海域生态环境的保护与修复,建议:①加强顶层设计,推进落实陆海统筹;②科学规划临港产业布局,加强涉海产业的污染管理;③加强污染物入海排放管控,提升海洋环境保护意识;④保障海洋生态建设资金,强化海洋生态保护与建设.      

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.     

地方环境约束目标对经济增长的影响效应

从2003~2017年中国283个地级市的政府工作报告中,收集了各年度各城市的环境保护约束目标,考察了各类环境约束目标对经济增长的影响.研究发现,对于SO₂等工业污染物的直接约束能够在促使政府提升环境治理力度的同时,释放经济增长红利;关于空气质量优良天数和PM_2.5浓度的间接约束不足以刺激污染型企业转型,且导致经济增长速度放缓.无环境约束将产生正向经济增长效应,但会以环境污染为代价.中间机制检验结果显示,产业结构和环境治理是环境约束影响经济增长的主要传导渠道.在环境保护约束的特征方面,约束目标“加码”将抑制经济增长,设定污染物减排区间更有利于发挥经济增长效应.经济与环境协调度方面,对环境污染物设定约束目标有助于促进经济与环境协调发展,无约束则不利于经济增长和环境保护双重目标的实现.地方政府应在明确设定污染物排放目标的基础上,遵循渐进原则对环境保护约束目标进行调整.