环境风险类型化视角下环境标准的差异化研究
|
摘要
类型化是人类识别、应对、管理和控制环境风险的一种必然方法。本文的主要目的在于通过对环境风险类型化的分析以及针对不同类型环境风险之环境标准的差异性分析,发现我国相关环境标准存在的不足,进而提出相应的完善建议。文章通过运用事实分析、比较分析、价值分析等研究方法,发现在类型化视角下,基于保护对象的不同,应当将环境风险分为人体健康风险和生态环境风险。并且,在此基础上应将相应的环境标准区分为人体健康标准和生态环境标准;在此区分之下,应进一步将人体健康标准和生态环境标准区分为有阈值物的环境标准和无阈值物的环境标准、可接受的风险标准和不可接受的风险标准。不同类型的环境标准之间应当存在一定的差异。唯有如此,才能有效规制相应的环境风险。这也是发达国家相应环境标准的普遍做法,但在我国相关的环境标准中并没有得到很好的贯彻和体现,应当成为我国将来环境标准制定的努力方向。根据这些研究结果,论文对我国环境标准的类型化和差异化方面主要提出以下三个方面的完善建议:第一,明确将我国的环境标准区分为人体健康标准与生态环境标准,并作进一步差异性的细化规定;第二,加强环境基准的研究,为环境标准的类型化与差异化提供科学基础和有效前提;第三,强化环境标准制定中的公众参与,提高环境标准类型化与差异化的可实施性。
Categorization is a necessary method that human used to identify,respond,manage and control environmental risks.Through the analysis of different types of environmental risk and the environmental standards used respectively under each type of environmental risk,it is founded that the environmental standard system in China has some defects which need to be further improved.Environmental risk,on the protection of different objective,can be divided into human health risk and ecological environment risk from the perspective of typology,by using the methods of fact analysis,comparative analysis and value analysis. Accordingly,the corresponding regulatory standards can be divided as human health standards and ecological environment standards. These standards can be further divided as environmental standards for substances with a threshold and substances without threshold,and standards for acceptable risk and standards for unacceptable risk. Differences should be kept among different types of environmental standards,in order to regulate the corresponding environmental risks effectively,which is the common practice of environmental standards in developed countries as well. However,this has not been embodied and implemented well in our environmental standards,and needs to be worked on in future. According to these research results,suggestions have been given to improve environmental standards in China,regarding the types and differences of environmental standards,including: clearly dividing China's environmental standards into human health standards and ecological environmental standards,and specifying the differences further; enhancing the research on environment baselines,in order to provide scientific basis and effective premise for the typology and differentiation of environmental standards;strengthening the public participation in the establishment of environmental standards to facilitate their implementation.
Categorization is a necessary method that human used to identify,respond,manage and control environmental risks.Through the analysis of different types of environmental risk and the environmental standards used respectively under each type of environmental risk,it is founded that the environmental standard system in China has some defects which need to be further improved.Environmental risk,on the protection of different objective,can be divided into human health risk and ecological environment risk from the perspective of typology,by using the methods of fact analysis,comparative analysis and value analysis. Accordingly,the corresponding regulatory standards can be divided as human health standards and ecological environment standards. These standards can be further divided as environmental standards for substances with a threshold and substances without threshold,and standards for acceptable risk and standards for unacceptable risk. Differences should be kept among different types of environmental standards,in order to regulate the corresponding environmental risks effectively,which is the common practice of environmental standards in developed countries as well. However,this has not been embodied and implemented well in our environmental standards,and needs to be worked on in future. According to these research results,suggestions have been given to improve environmental standards in China,regarding the types and differences of environmental standards,including: clearly dividing China's environmental standards into human health standards and ecological environmental standards,and specifying the differences further; enhancing the research on environment baselines,in order to provide scientific basis and effective premise for the typology and differentiation of environmental standards;strengthening the public participation in the establishment of environmental standards to facilitate their implementation.
引文
[1]亚图·考夫曼.类推与事物本质——兼论类型理论[M].吴从周,译.台北:学林文化事业有限公司,1999:111-117.
[2]BAUM A,FLEMIN R,DAVIDSON L M. Natural disaster and technological catastrophe[J]. Environment and behavior,1983,15(3):333-335.
[3]CARMEN K. Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception[J]. Journal of risk research,2012,15(3):237-256.
[4]谢晓非,李洁,于清源.怎么会让我们感觉更危险——风险沟通渠道分析[J].心理学报,2008(4):456-465.
[5]魏科技,宋永会,彭剑锋,等.环境风险源及其分类方法研究[J].安全与环境学报,2010(1):85-89.
[6]周萍入,齐振宏.消费者对转基因食品健康风险和生态风险认知实证研究[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2012(1):5-10.
[7]肖望兵.论服务型政府公共服务职能的有限性[J].湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版),2011(6):78-80.
[8]徐祥民.环境与资源保护法学[M].北京:科学出版社,2013:16-18.
[9]刘卫先.绿色发展理念的环境法意蕴[J].法学论坛,2018(6):39-48.
[10]金瑞林.环境法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002:24.
[11]大塚直,张震,李成玲.日本环境法的理念、原则以及环境权[J].求是学刊,2017(2):1-11.
[12]刘照普.常州“毒地”事件调查[J].中国经济周刊,2016(17):26-29.
[13]谈珊.环境与健康标准的断裂与弥合——基于全国铅镉污染的社会学调查[J].社会科学家,2016(10):104-105.
[14]宋静,骆永明,夏家淇.我国农用地土壤环境基准与标准制定研究[J].环境保护科学,2016(4):29-35.
[15]骆永明,夏家淇,章海波,等.中国土壤环境质量基准与标准制定的理论和方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2015:17-274.
[16]KOCH R.环境污染物的阈值概念[J].杨建军,译.环境科学丛刊,1985(7):54-57.
[17]唐海萍,陈娇,薛海丽.生态阈值:概念、方法与研究展望[J].植物生态学报,2015(9):932-940.
[18]唐婷,安显金,肖保华.二恶英毒性和中国土壤及沉积物二恶英的研究进展[J].地球与环境,2016(5):586-593.
[19]范小杉,罗宏,路超君,等.可接受环境风险水平概念的界定及其特征解析[J].环境污染与防治,2010(8):80-84.
[20]尚志海,刘希林.国外可接受风险标准研究综述[J].世界地理研究,2010(3):72-80.
[21]吴邦灿.我国环境标准的历史与现状[J].环境监测管理与技术,1999(3):23-30.
[22]周扬胜,张国宁,潘涛,等.环境保护标准原理方法及应用[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2015:225-226.
[23]邓可祝.美国环境质量标准诉讼及其启示[J].上海政法学院学报(法治论丛),2014(2):34-42.
[24]刘卫先.科学与民主在环境标准制定中的功能定位[J].中州学刊,2019(1):87-92.
[2]BAUM A,FLEMIN R,DAVIDSON L M. Natural disaster and technological catastrophe[J]. Environment and behavior,1983,15(3):333-335.
[3]CARMEN K. Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception[J]. Journal of risk research,2012,15(3):237-256.
[4]谢晓非,李洁,于清源.怎么会让我们感觉更危险——风险沟通渠道分析[J].心理学报,2008(4):456-465.
[5]魏科技,宋永会,彭剑锋,等.环境风险源及其分类方法研究[J].安全与环境学报,2010(1):85-89.
[6]周萍入,齐振宏.消费者对转基因食品健康风险和生态风险认知实证研究[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2012(1):5-10.
[7]肖望兵.论服务型政府公共服务职能的有限性[J].湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版),2011(6):78-80.
[8]徐祥民.环境与资源保护法学[M].北京:科学出版社,2013:16-18.
[9]刘卫先.绿色发展理念的环境法意蕴[J].法学论坛,2018(6):39-48.
[10]金瑞林.环境法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002:24.
[11]大塚直,张震,李成玲.日本环境法的理念、原则以及环境权[J].求是学刊,2017(2):1-11.
[12]刘照普.常州“毒地”事件调查[J].中国经济周刊,2016(17):26-29.
[13]谈珊.环境与健康标准的断裂与弥合——基于全国铅镉污染的社会学调查[J].社会科学家,2016(10):104-105.
[14]宋静,骆永明,夏家淇.我国农用地土壤环境基准与标准制定研究[J].环境保护科学,2016(4):29-35.
[15]骆永明,夏家淇,章海波,等.中国土壤环境质量基准与标准制定的理论和方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2015:17-274.
[16]KOCH R.环境污染物的阈值概念[J].杨建军,译.环境科学丛刊,1985(7):54-57.
[17]唐海萍,陈娇,薛海丽.生态阈值:概念、方法与研究展望[J].植物生态学报,2015(9):932-940.
[18]唐婷,安显金,肖保华.二恶英毒性和中国土壤及沉积物二恶英的研究进展[J].地球与环境,2016(5):586-593.
[19]范小杉,罗宏,路超君,等.可接受环境风险水平概念的界定及其特征解析[J].环境污染与防治,2010(8):80-84.
[20]尚志海,刘希林.国外可接受风险标准研究综述[J].世界地理研究,2010(3):72-80.
[21]吴邦灿.我国环境标准的历史与现状[J].环境监测管理与技术,1999(3):23-30.
[22]周扬胜,张国宁,潘涛,等.环境保护标准原理方法及应用[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2015:225-226.
[23]邓可祝.美国环境质量标准诉讼及其启示[J].上海政法学院学报(法治论丛),2014(2):34-42.
[24]刘卫先.科学与民主在环境标准制定中的功能定位[J].中州学刊,2019(1):87-92.