相邻污染侵害案件实证研究

相邻污染侵害案件实证研究结果表明，虽然主要是自然人之间的纠纷，生产经营型行为导致的相邻污染远超生活型行为；生产经营型相邻污染的主要行业来源是畜禽养殖行业和建筑行业，需要污染防治资源的重点倾斜，而生活型相邻污染集中发生于农村地区，有必要加大对农村人居环境的治理力度；在此类案件的审理过程中，污染事实认定标准不一，建议明确以容忍限度作为认定污染事实的统一标准；司法实践中将相邻污染与环境侵权相互混淆，对两者是否具有竞合关系分歧较大，相邻污染与环境侵权应当属于无条件竞合，但噪声、电磁污染等未超标情形下造成的相邻污染应属于相邻关系与一般侵权的竞合，均由受害人选择适用物权请求权或侵权请求权。

An Empirical Study of Adjacent Pollution Cases

Based on the empirical study of adjacent pollution cases, it is found that even though adjacent pollution cases always occur between natural persons, but the pollution caused by the production and operation behavior is more than those living behavior. The main sources of polluting industries are livestock and construction industries which need more pollution prevention resources. The neighboring pollution caused by living behavior always occurs in rural areas, so it is necessary to increase the intensity of environmental governance in rural areas. Moreover, in the process of trial, the standard of identifying pollution facts is unclear. It is suggested that tolerance limit should be regarded as the centralized standard. However, the scope of adjacent pollution and environmental tort is confused in judicial practice. There are different opinions on whether they have coopetition relationship or not. Adjacent pollution and environmental infringement belong to unconditional coopetition, while adjacent pollution caused by limited noise and electromagnetic pollution belong to common infringement coopetition, which is suitable for aggrieved party to choose jus rerem or infringement tort.