| 刘蕴芳,文静,张雨萱,林健聪,刘跃丹,洪伟,易皓.耕地破坏程度鉴定标准对比研究[J].农业环境科学学报,2023,42(12):2802-2812. |
| 耕地破坏程度鉴定标准对比研究 |
| Comparative study on identification standards for the degree of cultivated land damage |
| 投稿时间：2023-11-17 |
| DOI：10.11654/jaes.2023-0976 |
| 中文关键词: 耕地破坏 鉴定标准 指标 等级 |
| 英文关键词: cultivated land damage identification standards index grade |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1200 |
| 全文下载次数: 1608 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 耕地破坏程度鉴定是我国土地执法监察和司法诉讼的现实需求。由于耕地破坏类型复杂多样，加之鉴定标准可操作性不足，大量耕地破坏鉴定结论的公正客观受到质疑，进而影响司法鉴定公信力。本文对比了国家及省市出台的20个相关政策文件，分析其在鉴定程序、内容、指标体系、关键环节等方面的差异，并提出相关建议。对比可知：《耕地破坏程度鉴定办法》与《耕地破坏程度鉴定技术规范》分别聚焦于鉴定工作机制和鉴定规程，两者在内容上有少量交叉。各规范对鉴定单元划定、对照区选取仅作原则性规定。地类查证依据、鉴定指标体系存在显著差异。监测方法的系统性、全面性尚存不足，部分规范同一指标的采样方法、检测方法不同。各标准一般采用极限条件法确定破坏等级。种植条件严重毁坏的标准值存在显著差异，土壤严重污染的标准值基本一致。建议各地立足区域耕地种植条件，结合耕地破坏的类型与特点，本着“宜简不宜繁”的原则构建科学、合理有效、结果准确的鉴定指标体系。鉴定指标应与国家、行业标准相衔接，重点关注破坏主导因素，鉴定指标包括但不限于破坏面积、深度、坡度、裂缝密度，土壤容重、pH、有机质、含盐量、砾石含量，农作物种类变化度、农产品产量及质量，土壤微生物种类变化度，配套条件（灌溉、排水、道路、采光通风等），恢复成本等。同一指标应统一监测方法。建议利用层次分析法计算各指标权重，提高标准的科学性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Identification of the degree of cultivated land damage is a practical demand for land enforcement supervision and judicial litigation in China. Because of the complex and diverse types of cultivated land damage, as well as insufficient operability of identification standards, the fairness and objectivity of identification conclusions on a large number of cultivated land damage cases have been questioned and the credibility of these forensics is affected. This study compared the identification standards for the degree of cultivated land damage of 20 regions; analyzed the differences in terms of procedures, content, indicator systems, and key aspects; and puts forward relevant suggestions. Comparison showed that the Identification Measures for the Degree of Cultivated Land and Specifications for the Degree of Cultivated Land focus on the mechanism and regulations, respectively, with a slight overlap in content. The specifications only provide principles for the identification of units and control areas. Significant differences were observed in the basis of land type verification and the identification system. The systematic and comprehensive nature of monitoring methods remains insufficient, and different sampling and detection methods are sometimes used for the same indicator. The standards generally use the limit condition method to determine the level of damage. Significant differences exist in the standard limits for severe damage to planting conditions, whereas those for severe soil pollution are similar. Establishing a scientific, reasonable, effective, and accurate identification system based on the planting conditions of regional cultivated land, combined with the types and characteristics of cultivated land damage, and in accordance with the principle of “simple rather than complicated”is recommended for all regions. The indicators should be aligned with national and industry standards, with a focus on the dominant factors of damage. The indicators include, but are not limited to, the area; depth, slope; crack density; soil bulk density; pH; organic matter; salt content; gravel content; changes in crop species, agricultural product yield, and quality; changes in soil microbial species; supporting conditions（such as irrigation, drainage, roads, lighting and ventilation）; and recovery costs. The same indicator should have a unified monitoring method. This study suggests using the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the weights of each indicator and improve the science of the standards. |
| HTML
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
