A Review of: “Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder, eds. Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers”
A Review of: “Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder, eds. Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers”
复制标题
综述：“Young、Oran R.、Leslie A. King 和 Heike Schroeder，编辑：机构与环境变化：主要发现、应用和研究前沿”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Bray
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Bray
全球环境变化的体制方面项目在许多方面的紧迫性不亚于国际气候变化专门委员会（气专委）的项目。气专委和其他科学项目以令人印象深刻的确定性确定了全球变暖和无数其他形式的全球环境退化的事实和原因。不太知名的IDGEC，沿着其他努力，解决了下一个紧迫的问题：我们如何重新设计我们的机构来解决这些问题？尽管如此，IDGEC及其在国际全球环境变化人文因素计划（IHDP）中的姐妹项目沿着，至少在资源方面没有得到尊重。例如，政府间气候变化专门委员会已经存在了20多年，其2007年第四次评估报告有2，500多名科学专家审查文献，其中800名撰稿人和450名主要作者为报告提供了基础。这种历史性的科学数据整理使报告能够说出明确的事情，例如气候系统的变暖是明确的，只有5%的可能性是由于自然原因，以及许多其他非常精确的发现。相比之下，IDGEC项目在1995年至2007年期间运作，有22名从业人员和科学家以及3名外部审查员参与。这是社会科学的本质，它的研究结果不具有IPCC研究结果的头条新闻性质（甚至IPCC也只能偶尔抓住头条新闻）。此外，社会科学来之不易的见解听起来可能令人沮丧地显而易见：生态系统动态和治理系统之间经常存在“不匹配”，国际环境机构的有效性取决于它们与其他机构的相互作用，以及规模问题。但鉴于任务的紧迫性，为什么没有更多的人力和资源投入到制度设计的研究和行动中呢？这本书应该能帮助我们证明这一点。它告诉我们什么？由美国国家科学基金会（NSF）资助的IDGEC的12年研究是IHDP的四个原始核心项目之一。这个总部设在波恩的实体由教科文组织于1996年成立，是联合国大学的一个项目。本卷是IHDP制作的四卷之一。IDGEC和书中的许多章节都是围绕因果关系，性能和设计的研究焦点组织的，它定义为分析社会和自然资源，23：485-487版权所有#2010 Taylor &弗朗西斯集团有限责任公司ISSN：0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI：10.1080/08941921003641729
The Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) project is in many ways no less urgent than that of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC and other scientific projects have established with impressive certainty the fact and the causes of global warming and myriad other forms of global environmental degradation. The much less well-known IDGEC, along with other efforts, addresses the next pressing question: How do we redesign our institutions to address these problems? Nonetheless, the IDGEC, along with its sister projects in the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), gets no respect, at least when it comes to resources. For example, the IPCC has been in existence more than 20 years, and for its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 had more than 2,500 scientific experts reviewing the literature, with 800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors providing the basis for the report. This historic marshaling of scientific data allowed the report to say definitive things, such as that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that there is only a 5% chance that it is due to natural causes, among many other remarkably precise findings. By contrast, the IDGEC project was operative between 1995 and 2007, and involved 22 practitioners and scientists and three external reviewers. It is in the nature of the social sciences that its findings do not have quite the headline-grabbing nature of the IPCC findings (and even the IPCC can only sporadically grab the headlines). Also, the hard-won insights of the social sciences can come off sounding distressingly obvious: There are frequently ‘‘misfits’’ between ecosystem dynamics and governance systems, the effectiveness of international environmental institutions depends on their interplay with other institutions, and scale matters. But given the urgency of the task, why aren’t more people and resources being poured into research and action on institutional design? This book should help us make the case for doing that. So what does it tell us? The 12 years of research by the mostly National Science Foundation (NSF)funded IDGEC was one of the four original core projects of the IHDP. This Bonn-based entity was established by UNESCO in 1996 and is a program of the United Nations University. This volume is one of four produced by the IHDP. The IDGEC and many of the chapters in the book are organized around the research foci of causality, performance, and design and what it defines as the analytical Society and Natural Resources, 23:485–487 Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941921003641729