可持续发展科学中的因果推理导航。

IF 5.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Ambio Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-02047-y
Maja Schlüter, Tilman Hertz, María Mancilla García, Thomas Banitz, Volker Grimm, Lars-Göran Johansson, Emilie Lindkvist, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Sonja Radosavljevic, Karl Wennberg, Petri Ylikoski
{"title":"可持续发展科学中的因果推理导航。","authors":"Maja Schlüter,&nbsp;Tilman Hertz,&nbsp;María Mancilla García,&nbsp;Thomas Banitz,&nbsp;Volker Grimm,&nbsp;Lars-Göran Johansson,&nbsp;Emilie Lindkvist,&nbsp;Rodrigo Martínez-Peña,&nbsp;Sonja Radosavljevic,&nbsp;Karl Wennberg,&nbsp;Petri Ylikoski","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-02047-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause–effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers’ approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":"53 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11436621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating causal reasoning in sustainability science\",\"authors\":\"Maja Schlüter,&nbsp;Tilman Hertz,&nbsp;María Mancilla García,&nbsp;Thomas Banitz,&nbsp;Volker Grimm,&nbsp;Lars-Göran Johansson,&nbsp;Emilie Lindkvist,&nbsp;Rodrigo Martínez-Peña,&nbsp;Sonja Radosavljevic,&nbsp;Karl Wennberg,&nbsp;Petri Ylikoski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13280-024-02047-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause–effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers’ approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ambio\",\"volume\":\"53 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11436621/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ambio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02047-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02047-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在推理可持续发展问题的原因和可能的解决方案时,可持续发展科学家依赖于基于学科的因果关系理解。这些学科假设促成并限制了因果知识的产生,但却很少被明确提出。在像可持续发展科学这样的多学科领域,不了解因果推理中的差异会阻碍我们解决复杂的可持续发展问题。为了支持引导因果推理的多样性,我们阐明了研究人员在研究过程中何时以及如何进行因果推理,并讨论了引导因果推理的四种常见因果观念。这种阐述为研究人员提供了指导,使他们能够透明地表达自己的假设和选择,并解释其他研究人员的方法。了解因果主张是如何提出和证明的,可持续发展研究人员就能够评估因果主张的多样性,建立跨学科合作,并评估所提出的解决方案是否适合特定问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Navigating causal reasoning in sustainability science

When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause–effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers’ approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.

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
Ambio
Ambio 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信