General Discussion

I'm very policy-poor, so I thought I'd comment on the interpretation

and application of spatial data and models instead. The two attached

papers mentioned below are not really vital to the discussion, but rather

examples of pitfalls - certainly, only read them if you are

particularly interested.

1) MENZEL, S. and TENG, J. (2010), Ecosystem Services as a Stakeholder-Driven Concept for Conservation Science. Conservation Biology, 24: 907–909. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x

2) Lozier, J. D., Aniello, P. and Hickerson, M. J. (2009), Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 36: 1623–1627. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x

1)

The discussion on land use effects on environmental systems reminded

me of Menzel's critique of ecosystem services analysis. Since we are a

human-centered course, it seems natural that we care most about

preserving "life support systems" in the environment that we care

about.

Menzel critiques researchers for dressing up their unrelated concerns

in the armor of ecosystem services. He cites cases in which interviews

with locals were used to legitimize a study, but the resulting paper

never actually addressed the local's concerns. Researchers often enter

a system with a particular bias, and use ecosystem services as a way

to support the conclusion they have already drawn.

2)

Lozier's paper is a tongue-in-cheek critique of modeling procedures

similar to those mentioned in Ludeke's reading. Niche envelope models

are complex computer simulations that predict the geographic ranges of

species based on collection data. However, the math in these models is

insanely complex (minimization of system entropy), and very few

ecologists actually understand what is happening "under the hood" when

they plug in numbers for a result. Ridiculous outcomes can come from

models when critical assumptions are violated, or when bad data is

introduced into the system.

Similarly, the complex models described in Priess have the potential

to be a boon for policy workers. However, it is absolutely vital that

people using the models know the models' limits, are aware of the

assumptions that the data they feed in must meet, and realize that the

outputs of these models describe a very limited set of situations. For

example, land use change models assume that the region in question was

either comprehensively, or at least randomly, sampled, that data is

accurate to some scale, and need some sort of prediction predefined by

the user for which trends are actually likely to occur (climate

warming, population expansion, etc). These models are very powerful

and easy to use, but they are also really easy to screw up.

A quick example: A statistic that many people use in spatial analysis

(especially in policy) is "Moran's I". This is an index that explains

how "lumped" certain traits are - that is, does my income depend on my

neighbor's income? The index calculation looks very impressive:

N/So*sumi(sumj(Wij*Zi*Zj))/sumi(Z^2) - where Z is deviation from

expected values and W is spatial location.

However, what this actually means is that you simply divide the

difference within groups by the difference among groups (how different

is poverty in this square from the mean poverty on my map), scaled by

how far apart the sites are. This leads to several problems.

a) The spatial scale you use can change everything, and it's usually

not possible to predict how. For example, if we make Latin America one

"grid", then it speaks Spanish. If we make it two, it speaks Spanish

and Portuguese. If we add a little finer spatial resolution, it might

also speak French and English. Add even more, and regional languages

and dialects come into play.

b) Moran's I assumes your sampling is comprehensive and well-designed.

If you only sample in a "lumped" area, then the model will assume all

other locations have not poverty, and will return a bogus result. If

your data is biased, no analysis in the world can come up with

legitimate results.

c) The scale used to quantify variables matters. If you define poverty

as, say, earning under $1 per day, you will get a very different

result form somebody defining poverty by US standards. You need to

keep in mind, when reading the results of the model, that it only

answers the question you asked it.

So, complex models are nice, and give fantastic results when used

well. However, they can easily be tweaked to give the answers that

researchers want (or researchers can "shop" for models that legitimize

their agenda), and if they are used incorrectly, their results can be

useless, or worse, influence policy with wrong information.

P2

Can the local ecosystem and human attempts to obtain ecosystem services be analyzed outside the context of the global economic systems (ie finanicial hegemonies, colonization, world markets), which often define and put stressors on what ecosystems services are desired? 

In other words, what is the boundary of local , regional vs global in the human subsystem?

Particularly in the modern world where almost no corner of the earth is free of the need to engage with institutions such as the World Bank and IMF (ie need for farm land to do industrial farming vs small farms for “development”, or mining of coltan, or lithium....

P3.

How can one discuss the “modern era” scientifically without noting the specific effects of colonial and industrial social organization, in which population growth does not drive production alone.?

Instead of singularly focusing on population, what about profit growth drives attempts at resource extraction, which is then consumed unequally both locally and globally and the waste of these processes is also distributed unequally?

How does this literature account for places such as Europe and the US,  in which our consumption of global resources drives production of global resources even though populations in the US and Europe are on the decline?

p.7 

Where have Large scale diversion of resources to fuel export led growth in agriculture has typically been unsuccessful, socially, economically, and environmentally?  

Much more emphasis should be added to discuss global patterns of production and distribution and consumption

Attached are a couple helpful background articles for those who would like to think more about what it means to meaningfully engage in interdisciplinary research.  In my case, and likely others, my research until now has investigated questions that are important to sustainability science, but through a disciplinary lens.  These papers (both short) helped me appreciate the theoretical and practical implications of developing an interdisciplinary field.  They also helped me to contextualize my reactions to the book and its structure thus far.

We've discussed that sustainability science is a problem-oriented field, but how and to what extent are we drawing on the results and frameworks of specific disciplines?  In the Wear article attached, he suggests that presenting interdisciplinary subjects requires: “emphasizing exposition of basic principles to a greater extent than usual”.  I this this may be helpful advice to the authors, as I find myself confused about the starting position of a given chapter (e.g., why coupled human-environmental systems builds upon or is a departure from traditional approaches).  I was under the impression that different chapters would be written from different disciplinary lenses, and I wonder if it might be helpful to state those lenses explicitly, so that the reader can better understand what underlying assumptions the writer is working off of. This may be particularly useful in light of the discipline-oriented background that most academics have.  Consider that if the reader knows the chapter is written by an ecologist, then he or she can turn to an ecology textbook to obtain a better understanding of the “metaphorical baggage” (as Wear calls it) associated with ecology, in places where confusion arises.  I know Bill has stressed that the field and the book are truly interdisciplinary, but some clearer representation of which fields have been drawn from may be worth incorporating up front.

As a graduate student, I’m also curious to know if anyone has advice on how to frame sustainability science research within the constructs of a discipline or literature.  It seems most of the seminar leaders first acquired a discipline - is this still the case among the less tenured members of our group?  If not, where do you turn to become deeply versed in the topic you are interested in.  Is it dis-advantageous to be a "clean water" expert who knows something about what several disciplines believe about clean water?  As a second year graduate student, I'm in the process of trying to figure out the right types of questions to ask, and figuring out where to go to find out what has been done can be daunting.

In any case, I found the two attached articles helpful background for our study of sustainability science.  For those of you short on time, I thought this paragraph, from Wear (1999), well articulated my (and perhaps many of your) struggle in entering this field:

 “However strong the logic behind the development of interdisciplinary journals, the challenges to their successful implementation—due mainly to the diversity of their implied audience—are substantial. A scientific journal conducts discussions within a disciplinary community. To join such a community usually requires a graduate education where students are taught how to participate in a discipline's discussions. The course of study involves learning how to separate the major from the minor debates, the major from the minor players, and the debatable from the given, and, most importantly, learning the language. Language is most important because scientists speak in dialects that are specialized to their disciplines. Unfortunately, these dialects can at times sound very much like common language, leading the uninitiated reader to the mistaken conclusion that she understands what is being said. In such a light, an interdisciplinary research journal can be viewed as antithetical to the common practice of communication in science. Such a journal, by definition, is a venue for discussions among participants who speak very different languages.”

The second article attached, "Multifunctional landscapes - towards transdisciplinary research", (Fry, 2001), works off the example of agricultural landscapes and elaborates on developing interdisciplinarity in a way I found helpful.  He also elaborates on an idea that Bill has reiterated, that we must start from a solid, ideally unified, theoretical base and use this to build our research.

Note that these articles are somewhat older, so if someone knows of newer papers that have a preferred framework, please share! 

Thanks, Liz

* This could also be posted in the session general discussion, but it appears to me that those comments were more about the structure of the course, etc. I  also didn't see other posts or papers on this, but I may have missed them.

Sorry - the attachments won't post because they are too big, so here are the articles you can google (both are free):

Wear, David. Challenges to interdisciplinary research. Ecosystems (1999) 2: 299-301.

Fry, Gary. Multifunctional landscapes - towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning (2001) 57: 159-168.

Previously Elizabeth Walker wrote:

Attached are a couple helpful background articles for those who would like to think more about what it means to meaningfully engage in interdisciplinary research.  In my case, and likely others, my research until now has investigated questions that are important to sustainability science, but through a disciplinary lens.  These papers (both short) helped me appreciate the theoretical and practical implications of developing an interdisciplinary field.  They also helped me to contextualize my reactions to the book and its structure thus far.

 

We've discussed that sustainability science is a problem-oriented field, but how and to what extent are we drawing on the results and frameworks of specific disciplines?  In the Wear article attached, he suggests that presenting interdisciplinary subjects requires: “emphasizing exposition of basic principles to a greater extent than usual”.  I this this may be helpful advice to the authors, as I find myself confused about the starting position of a given chapter (e.g., why coupled human-environmental systems builds upon or is a departure from traditional approaches).  I was under the impression that different chapters would be written from different disciplinary lenses, and I wonder if it might be helpful to state those lenses explicitly, so that the reader can better understand what underlying assumptions the writer is working off of. This may be particularly useful in light of the discipline-oriented background that most academics have.  Consider that if the reader knows the chapter is written by an ecologist, then he or she can turn to an ecology textbook to obtain a better understanding of the

“metaphorical baggage” (as Wear calls it) associated with ecology, in places where confusion arises.  I know Bill has stressed that the field and the book are truly interdisciplinary, but some clearer representation of which fields have been drawn from may be worth incorporating up front.

 

As a graduate student, I’m also curious to know if anyone has advice on how to frame sustainability science research within the constructs of a discipline or literature.  It seems most of the seminar leaders first acquired a discipline - is this still the case among the less tenured members of our group?  If not, where do you turn to become deeply versed in the topic you are interested in.  Is it dis-advantageous to be a "clean water" expert who knows something about what several disciplines believe about clean water?  As a second year graduate student, I'm in the process of trying to figure out the right types of questions to ask, and figuring out where to go to find out what has been done can be daunting.

In any case, I found the two attached articles helpful background for our study of sustainability science.  For those of you short on time, I thought this paragraph, from Wear (1999), well articulated my (and perhaps many of your) struggle in entering this field:

 

“However strong the logic behind the development of interdisciplinary journals, the challenges to their successful implementation—due mainly to the diversity of their implied audience—are substantial. A scientific journal conducts discussions within a disciplinary community. To join such a community usually requires a graduate education where students are taught how to participate in a discipline's discussions. The course of study involves learning how to separate the major from the minor debates, the major from the minor players, and the debatable from the given, and, most importantly, learning the language. Language is most important because scientists speak in dialects that are specialized to their disciplines. Unfortunately, these dialects can at times sound very much like common language, leading the uninitiated reader to the mistaken conclusion that she understands what is being said. In such a light, an interdisciplinary research journal can be viewed as antithetical to the common practice of communication in science. Such a journal, by definition, is a venue for discussions among participants who speak very different languages.”

 

The second article attached

, "Multifunctional landscapes - towards transdisciplinary research", (Fry, 2001), works off the example of agricultural landscapes and elaborates on developing interdisciplinarity in a way I found helpful.  He also elaborates on an idea that Bill has reiterated, that we must start from a solid, ideally unified, theoretical base and use this to build our research.

Note that these articles are somewhat older, so if someone knows of newer papers that have a preferred framework, please share! 

 

Thanks, Liz

 

 

* This could also be posted in the session general discussion, but it appears to me that those comments were more about the structure of the course, etc. I  also didn't see other posts or papers on this, but I may have missed them.