当生态需要经济学与经济学需要生态学:人类世的跨学科交流

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ethics Policy & Environment Pub Date : 2020-05-03 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2020.1848182
S. A. Inkpen, C. Tyler DesRoches
{"title":"当生态需要经济学与经济学需要生态学:人类世的跨学科交流","authors":"S. A. Inkpen, C. Tyler DesRoches","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Evidence that humans play a dominant role in most ecosystems forces scientists to confront systems that contain factors transgressing traditional disciplinary boundaries. However, it is an open question whether this state of affairs should encourage interdisciplinary exchange or integration. With two case studies, we show that exchange between ecologists and economists is preferable, for epistemological and policy-oriented reasons, to their acting independently. We call this “exchange gain.” Our case studies show that theoretical exchanges can be less disruptive to current theory than commonly thought. Valuable interdisciplinary exchange does not necessarily require disciplinary breakdown.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"15 1","pages":"203 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Ecology Needs Economics and Economics Needs Ecology: Interdisciplinary Exchange during the Anthropocene\",\"authors\":\"S. A. Inkpen, C. Tyler DesRoches\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Evidence that humans play a dominant role in most ecosystems forces scientists to confront systems that contain factors transgressing traditional disciplinary boundaries. However, it is an open question whether this state of affairs should encourage interdisciplinary exchange or integration. With two case studies, we show that exchange between ecologists and economists is preferable, for epistemological and policy-oriented reasons, to their acting independently. We call this “exchange gain.” Our case studies show that theoretical exchanges can be less disruptive to current theory than commonly thought. Valuable interdisciplinary exchange does not necessarily require disciplinary breakdown.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"203 - 221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848182\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

人类在大多数生态系统中起主导作用的证据迫使科学家们面对包含超越传统学科界限的因素的系统。然而,这种情况是否应该鼓励跨学科的交流或整合是一个悬而未决的问题。通过两个案例研究,我们表明,出于认识论和政策导向的原因,生态学家和经济学家之间的交流比他们各自独立行动更可取。我们称之为“交换收益”。我们的案例研究表明,理论交流对当前理论的破坏性可能比通常认为的要小。有价值的跨学科交流并不一定需要学科分解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When Ecology Needs Economics and Economics Needs Ecology: Interdisciplinary Exchange during the Anthropocene
ABSTRACT Evidence that humans play a dominant role in most ecosystems forces scientists to confront systems that contain factors transgressing traditional disciplinary boundaries. However, it is an open question whether this state of affairs should encourage interdisciplinary exchange or integration. With two case studies, we show that exchange between ecologists and economists is preferable, for epistemological and policy-oriented reasons, to their acting independently. We call this “exchange gain.” Our case studies show that theoretical exchanges can be less disruptive to current theory than commonly thought. Valuable interdisciplinary exchange does not necessarily require disciplinary breakdown.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Revising the Keystone Species Concept for Conservation: Value Neutrality and Non-Nativeness Why Conceptions of Scale Matter to Artificity Arguments in SRM Ethics Animal Dignity: Philosophical Reflections on Non-Human Existence Justice and Sustainability Tensions in Agriculture: Wicked Problems in the Case of Dutch Manure Policy Covert Moral Enhancement: Are Dirty Hands Needed to Save the Planet?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1