恢复生态学的理论与研究进展

简介了恢复生态学中常用的生态学原理,以及在其自身发展过程中产生的状态过渡模型及阈值、集合规则、参考生态系统、人为设计和自我设计、适应性恢复等理论;从生境、种群、群落、生态系统、景观尺度层面,以及将全球变化与人类干扰纳入生态恢复范畴等方面介绍了恢复生态学的研究进展与主流认识。在此基础上,对恢复生态学的发展障碍与发展趋势进行了评述。     

Ethics and health systems research in 'post'-conflict situations

Although considerable attention has been given to ethical issues related to clinical research in developing countries, in particular related to HIV therapy, there has been limited focus on health systems research, despite its increasing importance in the light of current trends in development assistance. This paper examines ethical issues related to health systems research in 'post'-conflict situations, addressing both generic issues for developing countries and those issues specific to 'post'-conflict societies, citing examples from the author's Cambodian experience. It argues that the destruction of health infrastructure results in a loss of structures and processes that would otherwise protect prospective research subjects who are part of vulnerable populations. It identifies the growth of health systems research as part of a trend towards sectoral and programmatic development assistance, the emergence of 'knowledge generation' as a form of research linked to development, and the potential for conflict where multilateral and bilateral donors are both primary funders and users of health systems research. It also examines the position of the health system researcher in relation to the sponsors of this research, and the health system being analysed.     

生态系统健康研究进展

健康的生态系统一般被视为环境管理的终极目标,进行生态系统健康研究对探索区域与生态系统可持续发展具有重要意义。随着国际生态与健康学会(International Association for Ecology and Health)的解体,生态系统健康研究视角出现转型。系统梳理了近年来国际上有关生态系统健康概念及其评估方法、指标的新进展,通过文献统计和重要文献引用揭示了国际生态系统健康研究的发展历程,提出了从生态系统健康到生态健康再到生态文化健康的三大核心框架发展阶段,生态系统健康的研究对象和范围正在不断扩充。资源环境研究领域是国内研究者应用生态系统健康概念与方法的优势领域,在区域尺度上评价生态系统的健康更贴近资源环境和社会文化交互作用的复合表征理念。因此,我国生态系统健康研究的趋向不仅应包括在生态系统尺度上研究的继续深化,也应包含对生态文化健康概念的完善与应用,并发挥地理-生态视角的区域集成研究优势,从而有效指导区域生态与环境政策制定与实施。     

生态系统健康研究的一些基本问题探讨

目前有关生态系统健康研究的一些基本问题尚未达成共识。本文分析了健康、系统与生态系统3个与生态系统健康关联的概念,在此基础上,对生态系统健康的概念及其内涵、研究价值、研究的内容框架、研究的合理尺度以及生态系统质量诊断与质量等级评价进行了探讨。指出生态学上的生态系统是系统科学意义上系统的一类,整体性、稳定性和可持续性是生态系统的重要特征,生态系统健康可通过它的充分必要条件给出,即具备良好的整体性,能够维持较高的稳定性,并能实现良好的可持续性。生态系统质量标准分为质量诊断标准和质量等级评价标准,质量诊断是一种是与非的事实判断,而质量等级评价是一种价值判断。生态系统质量等级评价指标可分为限制可比型和非限制可比型两类。生态系统的复杂性决定了生态系统健康研究须借助于系统科学和非线性科学的理论与方法,生态系统病变的滞后性决定了生态系统健康研究必须加强生态系统质量预测与预警,而生态系统健康的跨学科性决定了生态系统健康研究需要生态学、环境学、医学、社会学以及经济学等领域研究人员的广泛合作。     

Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a ‘good idea’ or ‘good practice’ rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) community members in global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity‐oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs.