Advertisement

Geographical and Thematic Distribution of Publications Generated at the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network (ILTER) Sites

  • Ben LiEmail author
  • Terry Parr
  • Ricardo Rozzi
Chapter
Part of the Ecology and Ethics book series (ECET, volume 2)

Abstract

The International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network is currently unmatched by other global networks in its ability to coordinate and collaborate on long-term ecological research and monitoring at a planetary scale. This offers an ideal research, information, and infrastructural platform for the Earth Stewardship initiative. However, to achieve an effective synergy between ILTER and Earth Stewardship it is critical to overcome problematic geographical and conceptual gaps in ILTER Research. To quantify these gaps we produced a new database of scholarly and grey literature generated at long-term ecological or socio-ecological research (LTER) sites worldwide. We assessed: (1) the geographical origin of LTER researchers; (2) the geographical regions where these researchers conduct their studies; (3) which thematic areas are investigated in LTER research, and to what extent do they include concepts associated with Earth Stewardship; (4) in which venues are LTER research outputs published. Regarding the production of knowledge at ILTER, we found a marked Northern Hemispherism: > 90 % of the ILTER publications are generated by researchers from the Northern Hemisphere. Furthermore, 89 % of ILTER publications are generated by researchers associated with LTER networks in the North Temperate region (23° N – 66° N). Regarding conceptual gaps, < 0.5 % of ILTER publications are included in social sciences databases. Noticeably, however, > 99 % of all ILTER publications in the arts and the humanities are generated by researchers working in the South Temperate region (23°N – 66°N), especially Chile. Additionally, in Southern Hemisphere LTER networks research themes associated with Earth Stewardship were the most represented. Our concise analysis aims to call attention to the fact that opportunities exist for greater collaboration and complementarity in research across the ILTER Network. The southern regions can significantly add to the integration of social, ethical, and artistic dimensions to transdisciplinary socio-ecological research at ILTER, providing an intercultural and participatory foundation for Earth Stewardship.

Keywords

Earth Stewardship Ethics Knowledge production Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Research outputs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter was made possible by a project of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) Network, in conjunction with FinLTSER, the THULE Institute, and the Academy of Finland, SYKE – the Finnish Environment Institute, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UK), and the support of the Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB-Chile).

References

  1. Aguirre Sala J (2015) Hermeneutics and field environmental philosophy: integrating ecological sciences and ethics into earth stewardship. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–247Google Scholar
  2. Cavnar WB, Trenkle JM (1994) N-gram based text categorization. In: Proceedings of SDAIR-94, 3rd annual symposium on document analysis and information retrievalGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapin FS III, Pickett STA, Power ME et al (2015) Earth stewardship: an initiative by the ecological society of America to foster engagement to sustain planet earth. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 173–194Google Scholar
  4. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S et al (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gao S (2015) Aesthetic and moral appreciation of nature in philosophical traditions in China. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  6. Huntington HP (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 10(5):1270–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ILTER Network (2006) International long-term ecological research network final draft strategic plan. Published by the ILTER Network. http://www.ilternet.edu/about/key-documents/FINAL-DRAFT-STRATEGIC-PLAN-Aug2006.pdf
  8. ILTER Network (n.d.) http://ilternet.edu/
  9. Li B (2013) Searching for theory in metadata. iConference 2013 Proceedings, pp 377–388. doi: 10.9776/13216
  10. Li B (2014) Sustainable value and generativity in the Ecological Metadata Language (EML) platform: toward new knowledge and investigations. Proceedings of HICSS 2014Google Scholar
  11. Mamani-Bernabé V (2015) Spirituality and the Pachamama in the Andean Aymara worldview. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 65–76Google Scholar
  12. Maass M, Equihua M (2015) Earth stewardship, socioecosystems, the need for a transdisciplinary approach and the role of the international long term ecological research network (ILTER). In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–233Google Scholar
  13. May Jr R (2015) Dorothy stang: monkeys cry and the poor die, earth stewardship as liberation ecology. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 407–418Google Scholar
  14. Porter MF (1980) An algorithm for suffix stripping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 14(3):130–137Google Scholar
  15. Redman CL, Miller TR (2015) The technosphere and earth stewardship. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 269–279Google Scholar
  16. Rozzi R (2015a) Earth stewardship and the biocultural ethic: Latin American perspectives. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  17. Rozzi R (2015b) Implications of the biocultural ethic for Earth Stewardship. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 113–136Google Scholar
  18. Rozzi R, Arango X, Massardo F, Anderson C, Heidinger K, Moses K (2008) Field environmental philosophy and biocultural conservation: the Omora Ethnobotanical Park educational program. Environ Ethics 30(3):325–336 [en español: Filosofía ambiental de campo y conservación biocultural: el programa educativo del Parque Etnobotánico Omora. Environ Ethics 30(S3):5–128]Google Scholar
  19. Rozzi R, Armesto JJ, Gutiérrez JR, Massardo F et al (2012) Integrating ecology and environmental ethics: earth stewardship in the southern end of the Americas. BioScience 62(3):226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarmiento F (2015) The antlers of a trilemma: rediscovering Andean sacred sites. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 49–64Google Scholar
  21. Shibata H (2015) Biogeochemistry and traditional ecological knowledge and practices in Japan. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS III, Callicott JB et al (eds) Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  22. Singh SJ, Haberl H, Schmid M, Mirtl M, Chertow M (2013) Long term socio-ecological research. Studies in society: nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol Indic 7(2):215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Lancaster Environment CentreCentre for Ecology and HydrologyLancasterUK
  3. 3.Department of Philosophy and Religion StudiesUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Ecology and BiodiversitySantiagoChile
  5. 5.Universidad de MagallanesPunta ArenasChile

Personalised recommendations