山东济宁金乡大蒜产地重金属在土壤—农作物中迁移转化特征研究

基于金乡县南部地区土地质量地球化学调查与评价项目,系统采集表层土壤和大蒜样品,对As、Cd、Cr、Cu、Hg、Ni、Pb、Zn共8种重金属元素全量及形态数据进行深入分析,研究发现,土壤重金属形态除Cd、Hg外以残渣态占绝对优势;重金属生物可利用系数与SOM、pH、CEC均呈负相关;大蒜植株不同部位对元素的富集特征具有明显差异性,As、Cd、Cr、Pb、Ni、Cu、Zn表现为须根>叶身>假茎>蒜头;蒜头Cd与土壤Cd全量呈显著性正相关,其余元素与对应土壤中全量相关关系不明显。     

泰安市地质灾害预警预报系统研究

主要介绍了泰安市地质灾害气象风险预警与指挥系统。系统开发的主要目的是为了更好的与泰安市地质灾害防治工作相结合,通过对气象因素及地质灾害资料的分析和研究,基于地质灾害气象预警模型,采用先进的 GIS 技术能实现对地质灾害易发风险性区域预警,能直观地了解到各部分区域的地质灾害易发风险性,为各级政府防灾减灾提供科学的技术支撑。     

云GIS下智慧城市地理空间信息共享平台构建

目前,我国数字城市已走向面向云服务的智慧城市地理平台时代。云GIS服务平台为政府部门及公众提供了可定制、弹性化的一站式地理信息服务。本文在研究云GIS下地理空间数据的整合模型、服务体系架构,以及部署方式的基础上,深入分析了Arc GIS云平台特点并设计了一套基于云平台的智慧城市地理空间信息服务共享平台——"兰州市城关区数字化社会管理与服务平台"。该平台通过地理云服务集成了虚拟化、网络化、智能化等关键技术,创建了智慧城市社会管理与服务新模式,提高了社会管理效能和质量。     

多种激光扫描系统在数字城市中综合应用研究探索

该文以多种类型的激光扫描系统为研究对象,综合利用激光扫描系统在不同尺度下获取的数据,展示城市各个方面的部件特征,探索出基于四层结构（地形数据层、街区数据层、室内数据层和实体数据层）的数字城市三维建模解决方案,为多种激光扫描系统在数字城市综合应用提供研究方向。     

莱芜市基础测绘现状及发展建议

莱芜地处山东省中部,区位优势明显,产业基础良好。经济发展战略的实施,迫切需要基础地理信息数据提供包括地理环境、生态体系以及战略布局等全方位的科学分析和辅助决策。该文分析了莱芜市基础测绘发展现状,找出了基础测绘工作中的差距,认为今后应建立完善稳定的基础测绘经费投入机制,加快成果的开发与应用。     

三维数字城市管理平台的系统设计与实现

随着“数字城市”建设的推进,地理信息系统建设进入全面发展阶段,加快基础空间数据更新频率的需求日趋强烈。如何有效的使用基础空间数据,为城市建设增砖加瓦成为政府部门关注的问题。该文主要阐述某个城市的系统方案设计、体系架构、网络架构与实现功能,为其他三维数字城市管理平台的建设提供一定的参考依据。     

山东省蓬莱市蝎子顶金矿地质特征

蓬莱市蝎子顶金矿容矿构造为NW向断裂,具NW向成串分布的特点。NW向压扭性断裂与其派生的断裂裂隙系统是该区金矿床赋存空间的重要构造标志,构造破碎带中的钾化、硅化、黄铁绢英岩化等蚀变是一种直接找矿标志。通过对矿床地质特征的研究,认为该矿床属岩浆低中温热液充填交代蚀变岩型金矿床。     

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.