Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’
Using a metaphor based on a historical debate between socialist and free-market economists, Salliou and Stritih ( Environ. Res. Lett. 18 151001) advocate for decentralizing environmental management to harness emergent complexity and promote ecosystem health. Concerningly, however, their account seems to leave little room for top-down processes like government-led sustainability programs or centrally-planned conservation initiatives, the cornerstone of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. While we appreciate their call for humbleness, we offer a few words in defense of planning. Drawing on evidence from ecology, economics, and systems theory, we argue that (1) more complexity is not always better; (2) even if it were, mimicking minimally-regulated markets is probably not the best way to get it; and (3) sophisticated decision support tools can support humble planning under uncertainty. We sketch a re-interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that highlights the role of synthesis and theoretical pluralism. Rather than abandoning big-picture thinking, scientists must continue the difficult work of strengthening connections between and across multiple social, ecological, and policy scales.
Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’
Using a metaphor based on a historical debate between socialist and free-market economists, Salliou and Stritih ( Environ. Res. Lett. 18 151001) advocate for decentralizing environmental management to harness emergent complexity and promote ecosystem health. Concerningly, however, their account seems to leave little room for top-down processes like government-led sustainability programs or centrally-planned conservation initiatives, the cornerstone of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. While we appreciate their call for humbleness, we offer a few words in defense of planning. Drawing on evidence from ecology, economics, and systems theory, we argue that (1) more complexity is not always better; (2) even if it were, mimicking minimally-regulated markets is probably not the best way to get it; and (3) sophisticated decision support tools can support humble planning under uncertainty. We sketch a re-interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that highlights the role of synthesis and theoretical pluralism. Rather than abandoning big-picture thinking, scientists must continue the difficult work of strengthening connections between and across multiple social, ecological, and policy scales.
Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’
Logan Robert Bingham (Autor:in) / Lucy Van Kleunen (Autor:in) / Bohdan Kolisnyk (Autor:in) / Olha Nahorna (Autor:in) / Frederico Tupinambà-Simões (Autor:in) / Keith Reynolds (Autor:in) / Rasoul Yousefpour (Autor:in) / Thomas Knoke (Autor:in)
2023
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Unbekannt
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management
| DOAJ | 2023
| British Library Online Contents | 2018
Energy Management - Environment Business-Carbon Trust debate
Online Contents | 2003
Learning from the Socialist Suburb
| TIBKAT | 2019