英语翻译Goal-oriented and problem-solving approaches representtw

英语翻译
Goal-oriented and problem-solving approaches represent
two distinct kinds of targets decomposition in the
process of evaluation.Widely used in the evaluation of
various topics,both approaches have their own advantages
and disadvantages.In details,under the premise of
proposing the overall goals,goal-oriented approach will
establish the sub-goals and then adopt the top-down
model in the evaluation.Thus,the overall goal is always
focused and followed,which results in the coherence
between the evaluation results and targets.Through the
extensive investigations on the evaluation objects,problem-
solving methods aim to propose the main problems
correlated with the evaluation targets and associated
influencing factors and solutions.Thus,problem-solving methods can respond to the overall goals in the end from
bottom to up,with the pertinence characteristics of the
evaluation results.Among three types of evaluation
frameworks of regional ecological sustainability discussed
above,the comprehensive index evaluation
frameworks belongs to the goal-oriented approach,because
this evaluation framework is oriented to measure
the whole sustainability of coupled human and nature
system.On the contrary,frameworks of monetary valuation
and biophysical quantity measurement can be classified
as problem-solving approaches,as they focus on
one specific ecological aspect of regional sustainability
issues.
To date,along with the occurrence of more and more
emergent ecological or environmental conflicts,problem-
solving approaches are encouraged and recognized
to make valuable contribution towards achieving landscape
sustainability (Fu and Lu,2006; Opdam,2007;
Metzger,2008; McAlpine et al.,2010).However,in
comparison,object-oriented evaluation can select more
comprehensive indicators,but it can not effectively
characterize the critical issues due to lack of pertinence;
problem-solving assessment highlights the impact of
key issues on the evaluation targets,but fails to measure
the system goals comprehensively.Therefore,the integration
of top-down and bottom-up approaches are advocated
(Verburg and Overmars,2009).It is thought to
be a great help to the realization of the comprehensive
evaluation with generality and pertinence to integrate
goal-oriented and problem-solving approaches,namely,
to decompose overall goals into sub-goals,and to select
key issues to evaluate sub-goals.Furthermore,based on
the comprehensive decomposition of the overall goal of
ecological sustainability,a comprehensive index system
could be built with the application of various biophysical
quantity indicators or monetary indicators.The decomposition
model of pressure-state-response proposed
by Peng (2007) is a good example,which is a new direction
in the further studies of ecological sustainability evaluation.

面向目标的和解决问题的途径代表了评估过程中的两种独特的目标区域分解.这两种方法在各种话题的评估中广为运用,具有其自身的优缺点.细节上说来,在提出整体目标的前提之下,面向目标途径将建立次级目标然后在评估中采取自上而下的模式.这样,整体目标就总是能被集中和密切注意,结果是形成评估结果和目标之间的一致性.解决问题的方法是通过在评估目标上的广泛调查,目的在于提出与评估目标和伴随影响的因素和解决办法相关的主要问题.这样,解决问题的办法可以最终从下而上应对整体目标,且评估结果具有针对性特点.在上文讨论了的区域生态可持续性的三种评估框架之中,综合性的索引评估框架属于面向目标途径,因为此类评估框架的方向是测量人类于自然系统相连接的整体可持续性.相反,货币评估和生物物理质量测量的框架可以归类于解决问题途径,因为它们聚焦于区域可持续性问题的一个特定的生态方面.
到目前为止,随着出现越来越多的生态或环境冲突的产生,解决问题的途径受到鼓励和认可能够为实现地貌可持续性创造有价值的贡献.然而,相比之下,面向目标的评估可以选择更多综合性的指标,但是它不能有效地表示出重要问题的特性,原因在于它缺乏针对性； 解决问题的评估强调了在评估目标上的重要问题的影响,但是却不能综合性地测量系统的目标.因此,整合自上而下和自下而上的途径得到支持和提倡.这被认为是实现全局评估并带有普遍性和针对性的巨大帮助,整合面向目标和解决问题的途径,名曰,将总体目标分解为次级目标,并选择重要议题来评估次级目标.进一步讲,一个综合索引系统建立在生态可持续性的整体目标的综合性分解之上,可用各种各样生物物理量指标或者货币指标建立.由彭提出的压力-国家-反应的分解模式就是个好例子,对于未来生态可持续性评估的研究是一个崭新的方向.
再问： 翻得挺好的 是手翻的还是翻译器翻得呢 如果是翻译器的话就推荐一下吧