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
Case F - Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
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. 165 - 175Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alcamo, J., Hassan, R., Scholes, , et al. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Capistrano, D. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Findings of the Sub-global Assessments Working Group. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Correa, C. (1995). Sovereign and Property Rights over Plant Genetic Resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 12(4), 58–79.Google Scholar
Cronon, W. (1992). A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative. The Journal of American History, 78(4), 1347–1376.Google Scholar
Díaz, C. (2005). Intellectual Property Rights and Biological Resources: An Overview of Key Issues and Current Debates. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.Google Scholar
Doubilet, D., Grove, N., Lanting, F., and Rowell, G. (1999). World Wildlife Fund Presents: Living Planet. New York: Crown Publications.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H., and Kandlikar, M. (2011). Who Participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Why: A Quantitative Assessment of the National Representation of Authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1308–1317.Google Scholar
Huber, M. (2013). Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom, and the Forces of Capital. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with Making and Governing Global Kinds of Knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature, Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1998) Harmonization: The Politics of Reasoning Together. In Bal, R. and Halffman, W., eds., The Politics of Chemical Risk (pp. 173–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kandlikar, M., and Sagar, A. (1999). Climate Change Research and Analysis in India: An Integrated Assessment of a South–North Divide. Global Environmental Change, 9(2), 119–138.Google Scholar
Levin, S., Carpenter, S., Godfray, H., et al. (2009). The Princeton Guide to Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M., et al. (2006). Diversity Without Representation. Nature, 442(7100), 245–246.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (2004). Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. In Jasanoff, S., ed., States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order (pp. 46–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (2008). Civic Epistemologies: Constituting Knowledge and Order in Political Communities. Sociology Compass, 2(6), 1896–1919.Google Scholar
Miller, C., and Erickson, P. (2006). The Politics of Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Science and Democracy in Global Environmental Governance. In Reid, W., Berkes, F., and Wilbanks, T., eds., Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems (pp. 297, 314). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
Mittermeier, R., Goettsch Mittermeier, C., Myers, N., and Robles Gil, P. (1999). Biodiversidad Amenazada. Mexico: CEMEX.Google Scholar
Norgaard, R. (2008). Finding Hope in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 862–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norgaard, R. (2010). Ecosystem Services: From Eye-Opening Metaphor to Complexity Blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D., and Dinerstein, E. (1998). The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions. Conservation Biology, 12(3), 502–515.Google Scholar
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Reid, W., Capistrano, D., Berkes, F., and Wilbanks, T. (2006). Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
Robert, C., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al. (1998). The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 3–15.Google Scholar
Schrijver, N. (2008). Sovereignty over Natural Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shackley, S., and Wynne, B. (1995). Integrating Knowledges for Climate Change: Pyramids, Nets and Uncertainties. Global Environmental Change, 5(2), 113–126.Google Scholar
Takacs, D. (1996). The Idea of Biodiversity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, R. (1996). Global Biodiversity Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yue, T., Jorgensen, S., and Larocque, G. (2011). Progress in Global Ecological Modelling. Ecological Modelling, 222(14), 2172–2177.Google Scholar