Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
7 - Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 152 - 164Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bakker, M. M., Alam, S. J., Van Dijk, J., and Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2015). Land-use Change Arising from Rural Land Exchange: An Agent-Based Simulation Model. Landscape Ecology, 30(2), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammer, G. (2005). Integration and Implementation Sciences: Building a New Specialization. Ecology and Society, 10(2), art. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., and Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Capturing the Complexity of Biodiversity: A Critical Review of Economic Valuation Studies of Biological Diversity. Ecological Economics, 113, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, A., and Zeoli, L. (2008). Participatory Modelling of Endangered Wildlife Systems: Simulating the Sage-Grouse and Land Use in Central Washington. Ecological Economics, 68, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borie, M., and Hulme, M. (2015). Framing Global Biodiversity: IPBES between Mother Earth and Ecosystem Services. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 487–496.Google Scholar
Breslow, S. J., (2015). Accounting for Neoliberalism: ‘Social Drivers’ in Environmental Management. Marine Policy, 61, 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W., and Larigauderie, A. (2015). A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to People. PLOS Biology, 13(1), p.e1002040Google Scholar
Feuillette, S., Levrel, H., Boeuf, B., et al. (2015). The Use of Cost–Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policies: Some Issues Raised by the Water Framework Directive Implementation in France. Environmental Science & Policy, 57, 79–85.Google Scholar
Gamper, C., and Turcanu, C. (2007). On the Governmental Use of Multi-criteria Analysis. Ecological Economics, 62(2), 298–307.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., and Spash, C. (1993). Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hansjürgens, B. (2004). Economic Valuation through Cost-Benefit Analysis? Possibilities and Limitations. Toxicology, 205(3), 241–252.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1998). Harmonization: The Politics of Reasoning Together. In Bal, R. and Halfman, W., eds., The Politics of Chemical Risk (pp. 173–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kok, K., Van Vliet, M., Bärlund, I., Dubel, A., and Sendzimir, J. (2011). Combining Participative Backcasting and Exploratory Scenario Development: Experiences from the SCENES Project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 835–851.Google Scholar
Lélé, S., and Norgaard, R. (2005). Practicing Interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55(11), 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, International Knowledge Institutions, and Global Governance. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., and Dickson, N. M., eds. (2006). Global Environmental Assessment: Information and Influence. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R., Edmonds, J., Hibbard, K., et al. (2010). The Next Generation of Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Assessment. Nature, 463(7282), 747–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., et al. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services and the Fatal Attraction of Win‐Win Solutions. Conservation Letters, 6, 274–279.Google Scholar
Petts, J., Owens, S., and Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing Boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the Context of Urban Environments. Geoforum, 39(2), 593–601.Google Scholar
Peterson, G., Cumming, G., and Carpenter, S. (2003). Scenario Planning: A Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358–366.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. R. J., and Meitner, M. (2005). Using Multi-criteria Analysis and Visualisation for Sustainable Forest Management Planning with Stakeholder Groups. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 171–187.Google Scholar
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., and Buizer, M. (2013). Rethinking Biodiversity: From Goods and Services to ‘Living With’. Conservation Letters, 6, 154–161.Google Scholar
Voinov, A., and Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with Stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2010, 25, 1268–1281.Google Scholar
Wegner, G., and Pascual, U. (2011). Cost–Benefit Analysis in the Context of Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being: A Multidisciplinary Critique. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar