最近十年来中国地理科学的进展

最近十年来中国地理科学的最重要进展有:自然地理学与人文地理学的平衡发展,人口、资源、环境的研究,遥感的应用与地理信息系统的建立,自然地理定位观测,青藏高原隆起对自然环境的影响,城市与城市规划,中国历史地理研究等。最近,并已开始研究气候变化与海平面上升对中国的影响,使我国地理科学研究紧紧跟上世界发展的步伐。     

开展灾害学研究 保障人类生存与发展

灾害是人类面临的最严重的威胁。本文简要列述了各类灾害对国民经济建设和人类生存的危害性,论述了灾害的分类和体系特征,探讨了灾害形成的科学机理,强调了开展多学科、大体系研究的重要意义。同时结合国土环境遥感调查,提出了开展灾害学研究、监测防御、减灾抗祸的对策和建议,以期发挥现代地球科学理论与遥感技术的潜力,为促进灾害学的研究、保障人类更好地生存与发展作出贡献。     

区域持续发展的理论基础—陆地系统科学

对区域持续发展的研究是持续发展深化的必由之路。区域持续发展研究的理论基础是对地球表层自然与人文各种要素的综合规律的揭示，即陆地系统科学。对持续发展广泛深入地研究既是地理科学责无旁贷的任务，也可促进其进一步发展。     

试论如何依法管理地震科技档案

对地震科技档案目前在收集、接收等常规管理中存在的问题和如何解决这些问题进行了详细论述。认为,只有实现了档案材料形成积累和收集整理过程的一体化,才可保障档案材料的齐全完整,实现依法管理。     

Climate change in news media across the globe: An automated analysis of issue attention and themes in climate change coverage in 10 countries (2006–2018)

Climate change poses a challenge to countries across the world, with news media being an important source of information on the issue. To understand how and how much news media cover climate change, this study compares coverage in ten countries from the Global North and the Global South between 2006 and 2018 (N = 71,674). Based on a panel analysis, we illustrate that news media attention varies across countries and is often associated with political, scientific, and (partly) societal focusing events. Based on an automated content analysis, we also find that news media do not only cover ecological changes or climate science, but that they focus predominantly on the societal dimension of climate change: They emphasize how humans are aware of, affected by, battle, or cause climate change. Overall, the study illustrates important differences between the Global North and the Global South. While countries from the Global North cover climate change more frequently, countries from the Global South focus more on its challenges and implications for society at large, i.e., the societal dimension of climate change.     

Scientists’ framing of the ocean science–policy interface

Scientists’ ideas, beliefs, and discourses form the frames that shape their choices about which research to pursue, their approaches to collaboration and communicating results, and how they evaluate research outputs and outcomes. To achieve ocean sustainability, there are increasing calls for new levels of engagement and collaboration between scientists and policy-makers; scientists’ willingness to engage depends on their current and evolving frames. Here, I present results about how scientists involved in diverse fields of ocean research perceived their role as scientists working at or near the ocean science–policy interface and how this related to their perceptions regarding ocean research priorities. The survey of 2187 physical, ecological and social scientists from 94 countries showed that scientists held different perspectives about their appropriate level of engagement at the ocean science–policy interface and the relative primacy of science versus politics in formulating ocean policy. Six clusters of scientists varied in their frames; three clusters accounted for 94% of the sample. Of 67 research questions identified from 22 research prioritization and horizon scanning exercises, the top eight were shared among all three clusters, showing consistency in research priorities across scientists with different framings of their role at the science–policy interface. Five focused on the mechanisms and effects of global change on oceans, two focused on data collection and management for long-term ocean monitoring, and one focused on the links between biodiversity and ecological function at different scales. The results from this survey demonstrated that scientists’ framings of the role of ocean science at the science–policy interface can be quantified in surveys, that framing varies among scientists, and that research priorities vary according to the framings.     

Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance

Adaptive governance focuses our attention on the relationships between science and management, whereby the so-called ‘gaps’ between these groups are seen to hinder effective adaptive responses to biophysical change. Yet the relationships between science and governance, knowledge and action, remain under theorized in discussions of adaptive governance, which largely focuses on abstract design principles or preferred institutional arrangements. In contrast, the metaphor of co-production highlights the social and political processes through which science, policy, and practice co-evolve. Co-production is invoked as a normative goal (Mitchell et al., 2004) and analytical lens (Jasanoff, 2004a, Jasanoff, 2004b), both of which provide useful insight into the processes underpinning adaptive governance. This paper builds on and integrates these disparate views to reconceptualize adaptive governance as a process of co-production. I outline an alternative conceptual framing, ‘co-productive governance’, that articulates the context, knowledge, process, and vision of governance. I explore these ideas through two cases of connectivity conservation, which draws on conservation science to promote collaborative cross-scale governance. This analysis highlights the ways in which the different contexts of these cases produced very different framings and responses to the same propositions of science and governance. Drawing on theoretical and empirical material, co-productive governance moves beyond long standing debates that institutions can be rationally crafted or must emerge from context resituate adaptive governance in a more critical and contextualized space. This reframing focuses on the process of governance through an explicit consideration of how normative considerations shape the interactions between knowledge and power, science and governance.     

When seed fails: The contested nature of neoliberalism in South Korea

In recent years, many geographers have examined the ways that the production of nature has changed as a result of neoliberal practices. In this paper we examine a conflict in South Korea that started when some Chinese-cabbage seeds were affected by a virus, causing crop failure. This failure came shortly after liberalization in the Korean seed industry led to foreign ownership of the firm that sold the seed. We focus in particular on the farmers’ creative political responses - and their subsequent defeat in court. Drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s insights on politics, science, and law, we examine how the seed failure came to be evaluated through scientific and legal practices. We argue that the adjudication of the truth of the seed failure through science and law reveals how socionatures are contested under prevailing hegemonic conditions. These conditions are both general and specific: although law and science are relatively hegemonic spheres of truth-production in all capitalist societies, the ways that the seeds were disputed and evaluated were distinctly Korean.