This article summarizes the primary outcomes of an interdisciplinary workshop in 2010, sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation, focused on developing key questions and integrative themes ...for advancing the science of human–landscape systems. The workshop was a response to a grand challenge identified recently by the U.S. National Research Council (2010a)—“How will Earth’s surface evolve in the “Anthropocene?”—suggesting that new theories and methodological approaches are needed to tackle increasingly complex human–landscape interactions in the new era. A new science of human–landscape systems recognizes the interdependence of hydro-geomorphological, ecological, and human processes and functions. Advances within a range of disciplines spanning the physical, biological, and social sciences are therefore needed to contribute toward interdisciplinary research that lies at the heart of the science. Four integrative research themes were identified—thresholds/tipping points, time scales and time lags, spatial scales and boundaries, and feedback loops—serving as potential focal points around which theory can be built for human–landscape systems. Implementing the integrative themes requires that the research communities: (1) establish common metrics to describe and quantify human, biological, and geomorphological systems; (2) develop new ways to integrate diverse data and methods; and (3) focus on synthesis, generalization, and meta-analyses, as individual case studies continue to accumulate. Challenges to meeting these needs center on effective communication and collaboration across diverse disciplines spanning the natural and social scientific divide. Creating venues and mechanisms for sustained focused interdisciplinary collaborations, such as synthesis centers, becomes extraordinarily important for advancing the science.
The first goal of this paper is to sketch a three-part, synoptic framework that could ease the way beyond the current impasse of competition among the various metatheoretical orientations (e.g. ...realism vs. social constructivism, positivism vs. cultural theory, etc.) in the risk field. The framework will be constructed on a foundation of metatheoretical principles and its form will accommodate the best features of the competing orientations. Because the articulated principles will build first on a position of realism, we can refer to the framework as a whole as Reconstructed Realism (RR). Because the content of the framework comprises its first two key parts, ontological realism and epistemological hierarchicalism , we can refer to the content by the acronym OREH. The second goal of the paper is to epistemically connect the synoptic framework, RR, to a methodological framework for conducting risk analysis, thereby providing a bridge between theory and practice. The existing methodological framework that bears logical symmetry to RR is the one developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz in a suite of papers (1985; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994) and which they call 'post-normal science'. Connecting RR- the synoptic framework under development- with postnormal science completes the third part of the framework, and the resulting product is properly labelled 'post-normal risk.' Our life of fishing is so perilous that even though we worship all the gods in the world, many of us still die untimely deaths. Noriko Ogiwara, Dragon Sword and Wind Child
At least three perspectives—industrial ecology (IE), ecological modernization theory (EMT), and the “environmental Kuznets curve” (EKC)—emphasize the potential for sustainability via refinements in ...production systems that dramatically reduce the environmental impacts of economic development. Can improvements in efficiency counterbalance environmental impacts stemming from the scale of production? To address this question we analyze cross‐national variation in the ecological footprint (EF) per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). The EF is a widely recognized indicator of human pressure on the environment. The EF of a nation is the amount of land area that would be required to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the wastes it generates. The most striking finding of our analyses is that there is limited variation across nations in EF per unit of GDP. This indicates limited plasticity in the levels of EF intensity or eco‐efficiency among nations, particularly among affluent nations. EF intensity is lowest (ecoefficiency is highest) in affluent nations, but the level of efficiency in these nations does not appear to be of sufficient magnitude to compensate for their large productive capacities. These results suggest that modernization and economic development will be insufficient, in themselves, to bring about the ecological sustainability of societies.
Objective. Sound environmental policy is fully dependent upon sound science. However, we have little scientific knowledge of the driving forces behind environmental change. We use the well-known I = ...PAT formulation (environmental impacts are the multiplicative product of population, affluence, and technology) as a framework to assess the relative impacts of driving forces. Methods. We introduce the concept of plasticity—the potential for each factor to vary, particularly because of purposive human action (e.g., policy)—to fine tune our understanding of how each factor can influence different impacts. We illustrate plasticity by assessing each driving force for a variety of environmental impacts. Results. We demonstrate that population, affluence, and technology have different potentials for mitigating different types of impacts and that no one factor is of greater importance than the others. Conclusions. We conclude that plasticity measures can guide policymakers toward identifying and prioritizing those environmental problems most responsive to policy solution.
► Human well-being depends on multiple ecosystem services, many of them being underpinned by biodiversity. ► Biodiversity continues to be lost at an unprecedented rate. ► Decision-makers and ...policy-makers require sound scientific foundation to secure the planet's biodiversity and ecosystem services, while contributing to human well-being and poverty eradication. ► The new DIVERSITAS vision is built around four main research challenges to help guide the global research community towards this foundation.
DIVERSITAS, the international programme on biodiversity science, is releasing a strategic vision presenting scientific challenges for the next decade of research on biodiversity and ecosystem services: “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science for a Sustainable Planet”. This new vision is a response of the biodiversity and ecosystem services scientific community to the accelerating loss of the components of biodiversity, as well as to changes in the biodiversity science-policy landscape (establishment of a Biodiversity Observing Network—GEO BON, of an Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—IPBES, of the new Future Earth initiative; and release of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020). This article presents the vision and its core scientific challenges.
Ascientific consensus has emerged indicating that the global climate is changing due to anthropogenic (i.e., human induced) driving forces. Our previous research reformulated the well-known I=PAT ...(environmental Impacts equal the multiplicative product of Population, Affluence, and Technology) model into stochastic form, named it the STIRPAT model, and used it to assess the effects of population and affluence on carbon dioxide loads. Here we extend those findings by examining the impacts of population, affluence and other factors on the emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as the combined global warming potential of these two gases. We also assess the potential for "ecological modernization" or an "environmental Kuznets curve" (EKC) effect to curb GHG emissions. Our findings suggest that population is a consistent force behind GHG emissions, that affluence also drives emissions, that urbanization and industrialization increase emissions, and that tropical nations have lower emissions than non-tropical nations, controlling for other factors. Contrary to what ecological modernization and EKC theorists predict, we find that to date there is no compelling evidence of a decline in emissions with modernization. These results support both the "treadmill of production" thesis and the "metabolic rift" thesis.
: Mutations in connexin26, a cutaneous gap junction protein, cause a wide variety of skin disorders including keratitis‐ichthyosis‐deafness syndrome (KID). We previously delineated a phenotype ...distinct from KID, hypotrichosis‐deafness syndrome, caused by the mutation p.Asn14Lys in connexin26. However, a different mutation at the same location, p.Asn14Tyr, was reported to cause a disorder similar to KID. Distinct substitutions cause different conformational changes to the protein, each with unique consequences for its behaviour. This may explain the phenotypic differences. We found the previously described mutation p.Asn14Tyr in connexin26 in two patients from Brazil and Poland, and observe quite distinct phenotypes distinguishable from classical KID syndrome. We assessed functional consequences of p.Asn14Tyr and p.Asn14Lys, using fluorescently labelled proteins and parachute assay, comparing them with the classical KID mutation p.Asp50Asn. Our analyses show that p.Asn14Tyr, p.Asn14Lys and p.Asp50Asn have different consequences for protein localization and gap junction permeability. However, the differences between the phenotypes we observed cannot be readily explained from effects on protein trafficking or gap junction permeability.
Pioneer environmental sociologists, Riley E. Dunlap and William R. Catton Jr., successfully laid the foundation of environmental sociology by pointing out the anthropocentric bias of mainstream ...sociology. The exemplary intellectual source of this bias could be found in the works of French sociologist Émile Durkheim whose methodological dictum stated that social facts could only be explained by other social facts. Here we call for a re-evaluation of Durkheim's role as perpetrator of the anthropocentric bias behind the Human Exemptionalist Paradigm dominating mainstream sociology. We do this from several directions but mostly by re-visiting his foundational writing on the topic, his inaugural lecture in sociology given at the University of Bordeaux in 1887. Our critical examination of that lecture makes it clear that Durkheim's idea of "social facts" was far richer, more nuanced, and more mindful of biological and other environmental factors than typically recognized in the sociology literature. We conclude that it might profit scholars to re-visit Durkheim, not as the party guilty for dismissing the environment, but as a foundation for understanding the dynamics between human and environmental systems.
Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste? ROSA, Eugene A; TULER, Seth P; LESCHINE, Thomas M ...
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
08/2010, Letnik:
329, Številka:
5993
Journal Article
Recenzirano
A stalled nuclear waste program, and possible increase in wastes, beg for social science input into acceptable solutions.
Nuclear power is re-emerging as a major part of the energy portfolios of a ...wide variety of nations. With over 50 reactors being built around the world today and over 100 more planned to come online in the next decade, many observers are proclaiming a “nuclear renaissance” (
1
). The success of a nuclear revival is dependent upon addressing a well-known set of challenges, for example, plant safety (even in the light of improved reactor designs), costs and liabilities, terrorism at plants and in transport, weapons proliferation, and the successful siting of the plants themselves (
2
,
3
).
PDF
