As part of their argument that the anthropocence demands we
rethink the split between nature and society, Christophe Bonneuil and
Jean-Baptiste Fressoz suggest we need to study both “natures pervaded by the social” and “societies pervaded by nature” (36). One of the core conclusions of their book The Shock of the Anthropocene is indeed
that these “two former supposed ‘compartments’ must thus be studied by
combining approaches of the so-called social and so-called natural sciences,
rather than by an interdisciplinarity of adjacency in which each would reign
over its own compartment” (37). In this way, they echo a point made in Ted
Toadvine’s short “Six Myths of Interdisciplinarity.” Indeed, Toadvine posits that a “broad
interdisciplinarity” is important for environmental studies--“broad” serving to
mark what he calls “a conversation between the disciplines that range across
the spectrum from the natural sciences to the humanities.”
In this short writing assignment, we’d like you to meditate
on interdisciplinarity and climate
change . You might start by considering the insights on climate change offered
by your own discipline. Can you identify moments of incommensurability with
other disciplinary ways of knowing in these climate insights? What might be some barriers to the “broad interdisciplinarity”
Toadvine outlines? Can you identify
places where “nature” and the “social” are compartmentalized? Is it necessary
to overcome this compartmentalization?
Think about your answer for a few minutes, then try to quickly
compose a reasoned response that represents no more than 20 minutes of writing
and editing. Post this writing in the
comments below. If you encounter interface or technical troubles, or just have general questions about the assignment, shoot me an
e-mail at kkmaier@alaska.edu and I’ll
post the comments for you.
When Kevin's e-mail announcing the blob post arrived, I was working on a paper examining the relationship between social inputs (economic inequality, wealth, poverty, collective action) and ecological outcomes (forest size, basal area). This is a project I've been working on for several years (since at least 2014!) which I hope will eventually be published in an interdisciplinary journal focusing on development and environmental governance. I'll be the lead author on this one, and my co-authors will include a forest ecologist, another political scientist, a mathematician, and a couple of other folks from different fields.
ReplyDeleteInterdisciplinary work is _hard_, as this unpublished paper's age suggests, and I'm a little more amenable to Toadvine's description of how it can work than Bonneuil and Fressoz, who, in opposing "interdisciplinary of adjacency," seem to be saying "go big or go home." I've done a lot of work with people from different fields, some from "adjacent" fields (like economists) and some from fields less adjacent (like Botany), and there are a whole variety of problems to overcome. Just getting to the point where we understand one another can be real struggle, and there are often issues understanding what might be interesting research questions in other fields and what researchers in other fields can plausibly research. Incentives in traditional disciplinary departments are often constructed--unintentionally--to discourage interdisciplinary, such that interdisciplinary collaboration can hurt our chances for promotion and tenure, and publishing in another field's journals is often stigmatized. Sometimes these barriers are cultural and attitudinal, but often they're unintentional and recognized, making them difficult to overcome...
Fortunately, we have fewer of these problems at UAS, in part because of our small size.
My main discipline is geography, which contrary to what a lot of Americans think, is actually an interdisciplinary discipline. Geography is much more than just naming capital cities or major rivers. It’s understanding why those places are where they are, how they got those names, and what that means for the rest of the region and the world. Understanding the reasons why something is where it is, both in location and time, is a task that is best done through an interdisciplinary lens.
ReplyDeleteAny issue that can be seen globally is inherently a geographic issue. The paramount global environmental issue of our time is climate change. Climate change is still being debated across disciplines, and depending on who you ask, you’ll get wildly different views on climate change. If you ask a climate scientist, they’ll show you data and graphs that show the earth warming at an unexpected and uncontrolled rate. If you ask a political scientist, depending on their leaning, they’ll tell you it’s the fault of the oil companies or that climate change is a hoax. If you ask an activist, they’ll say its time for change if we have any hope of saving the human race. All of these disciplines, from physical science to social science to liberal arts, need to be in the conversation. As we’ve discussed in class, it can be hard to blend scientists, politicians, and artists together. I think in many conversations, an important party is often discarded- the geographers. Now, I admit my own bias, as I consider myself to be a young geographer, but there is something that geographers can offer that is often ignored.
When talking about climate change as a geographer, you’ll likely hear about a specific location and how it’s been affected by a changing climate. But, an analysis of location requires combining the variables of physical characteristics, like topography, with aspects of humanity, like regional culture, and considering the temporal realm that these events are happening. In this way, we can see that climate change is not only affecting the planet itself, but people that live on it too. An analysis like this requires someone to be “jack of all trades”. Combining knowledge of physical geographies, such as orographic weather patterns, with an understanding of local cultural traditions, provides a different insight into the full impacts of climate change.
Often times, people get bogged down in their own discipline. A scientist wants to look at data and interpret graphs, but find it harder to read through a policy maker’s plan to combat climate change. If there is change to happen, the scientist and the policymaker need to be on a first-name basis. How can we do this? I recommend inviting a geographer into the room. The geographer, having a unique ability to use science to explain cultural phenomena, would be the ideal mediator between the science and the art side.
I do not want this to sound like geography is somehow a better or more encompassing discipline. I believe that it is important to compartmentalize nature and social; it would be impossible for one person to learn everything on both sides. Additionally, we need climate scientists to focus and monitor the state of the atmosphere, and social scientists to focus and monitor the state of humanity. But, we’re faced with a unique issue that will require these parties to come together to learn and share knowledge with each other. This is where the geographer should play an integral role, and not pushed to the corner as some people who really like maps.
It's true, we do like maps, but there is so much more to it than that. Geographers can help to fill in the gaps in the bridge from science to society, and in doing so, will allow more experts to cross the bridge, and support a complete, interdisciplinary path through climate change.
As a geography and environmental studies major, climate change is by and far the most important issue that is affecting our studies top to bottom. Climate change is the ultimate interdisciplinary topic, as it is truly all encompassing with its envelopment of the social sciences, physical sciences, political sciences, and humanities. Geography is not just looking at maps, even though us Geography majors are big map nerds. It is also, in a way as encompassing of a discipline as climate change; Specifically, it regards not just the physical landscape and topography of a region, but the cultural impacts of an area as well. A geographer must look at more than a map when studying an area, but the people and sociological impacts as well. Khrystal put it succinctly above when she stated that it is a “jack-of-all-trades” and I agree with her assessment that this specific discipline is uniquely suited to study many of the aspects of climate change.
ReplyDeleteI think that with the unique perspective that geographers utilize, almost as a bridge between disciplines of the physical and social sciences, that it helps deter moments of incommensurability besides a literal ignorance of the knowledge at hands. Personally, my biggest frustration hasn’t been a barrier or a roadblock, but a lack of understanding the topic at hand, usually in the sciences discipline. That is where the aspects of the environmental studies come in handy as the science courses I participate in help take up that lack of knowledge and understanding. Looking at some scientific graphs that are way above my current level of understanding can sometimes hamstring me and prevent me from fully grasping the information at hand. I know I am not alone in that as being not a purely science-based student. I think that what Toadvine speaks of, regarding barriers, can also be applied to this aspect. Scientists and non-scientists have vastly different viewpoints and ways of viewing and expressing themselves and data. We see this in class as both Jason and Glenn and Kevin all have differing opinions on the same topic or paper and how they even approach reading or understanding the issue at hand.
In our highly digitalized age, I think one area where the “nature” and the “social” are compartmentalized is in our approach towards social media and the introduction of the outdoors as the “cool” activity to participate in. In the grand, overarching and hugely complex issue of climate change, zooming in to an important aspect of how people, down to the individual level, view “nature” and “the outdoors” and how they prioritize these aspects are important to note and study as public action and opinion will be necessary to help confront these massive challenges ahead of us.
As a geography and environmental studies major climate change is an immensely complex issue to study. Climate change itself is like the major because both are diverse, complex, and when a person thinks that they understand all there is to the subject they find out it is more complex than they could have ever imagined. In either one when a person thinks that they completely understand the subject, they do not, as any one person can't look at a subject through every conceivable lens. Climate change is a subject that needs many people with many different majors to work together and share in a language that the others can understand. Some disciplines and majors take more effort than others to communicate effectively with each other as they are each in their own disciplinary language with words and phrases that few outside of the discipline would understand. Climate change is interesting as a topic as it forces people to look beyond the limits of their island of language and knowledge and work together in new and creative ways. Geography fits it especially as it is a study of everything about everything. It is by nature an interdisciplinary degree and climate change is about as interdisciplinary a subject as a person can find as it effects the whole world in many different and unique ways.
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest challenges in many disciplines is understanding what the other disciplines are saying. One does not just learn a new way of communicating overnight, it takes time, effort, and collaboration to get to the point where they can work effectively together with the knowledge of what each other are conveying. At first, they suffer from incommensurability because their different ways of thinking initially prevent effective communication, but over time the different disciplines can create understanding amongst one another so that the people from the other disciplines can see through each other's eyes to gain insight where confusion once was. This in-turn giving new creativity and thought processes that would not have surfaced independently. Some communicate well through graphs and small in-depth studies while others focus on information for the masses and the large scale picture, but both can overcome obstacles such as communication language and lack of will to learn another way to successfully work together.
Nature and social are often compartmentalized by people. The more life goes on the more it looks like they are two interconnected parts. Each effecting the other endlessly. Some degrees try to focus and compartmentalize these two subjects. What works in the beginning (separation) turns more and more into a realization that everything is a combination of the two in some way, shape, or form. Often science tries to compartmentalize the two with limited success. It is important to overcome this compartmentalization as it limits the way a person thinks about the world. It is also important to overcome as new threats such as climate change require all disciplines to work together to better understand it in all its facets, both social and natural. A person can only get so far missing part of their senses and this is the same for humanity with each discipline and degree being its own sense in the body of human knowledge.
Climate change is usually characterized by its effect on the environment and then how that will impact the people. I think its easy to look at people as numbers sometimes, it’s just easier to quantify the effects of something so big as climate change. But instead of looking at the numbers, I think it’s important to consider the individual (and their thoughts) on topics of climate change. Food insecurities, large scale natural disasters, general societal instability, all these are completely possible via climate change. Knowing this, does it make you more frightened or hopeless? It may make you feel anxious or even inspire feelings of grief. If so, these aren’t feelings that are healthy, these are impacts of climate change on your mind. Yes, your mental health will be influenced by climate change at some point your life. Whether it’s from being forcibly relocated due to a natural disaster, experiencing feelings of grief and hopelessness due to lack of control, or general societal instability, you will be affected because you (and your mind) are part of the environment. Making sure people have the mental ability to remain positive and overcome these adversities is an important part of climate change This is just one area of Psychology (one of my focuses within social science) that is beneficial in understanding in relation to climate change.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest barrier to an interdisciplinary discussion is the breadth of specializations and topics on climate change. How do you organize an interdisciplinary discussion with such a large impact on the world? Climate change is so big that I don’t think it can be whittled down to a few narrow discussion points, in fact, I think it’s the opposite. This is discussion where everyone belongs at the table since we all live on earth. That being said, I think the sheer amounts of information on the topic make having this discussion feel nearly impossible. We are dealing with a threat to all humans, and yet we are supposed to feel capable of discussing solutions to fix the world itself. The biggest barrier is how big climate change is in my opinion, it seems so overwhelming.
This post was by Taylor Hrupek
DeleteMy disciplinary perspective comes from Environmental Science, and as you can imagine, climate change has definitely found it's way into all of my classes associated with it, seeing as how it's become more and more a factor of change, be it good or bad, in the last few decades.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Environmental Science is it's own smaller mixture of maybe a couple different disciplines. As both Biology, Atmospheric studies, and Geography come into play.
I think the hardest part about the different disciplines would be the communication between them, as we've briefly discussed in class a few times. While some disciplines may be (even slightly) similar in subject matter, most tend to have differing ideas on what a primary cause of or focus should be when in relation to climate change.
As for Nature and Social, they go hand in hand, because they are constantly in a loop of cause and effect relationship. It would more than likely prove more effective to overcome this separation, as so many more things could be accomplished if only they fit together more perfectly.
An example of Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change relating to my one of a few disciplines comes from a recent collaboration started between the local composer group that I am a part of and a group of natural scientists from the University of Fairbanks on the topic of natural science in general as well as climate change. Unfortunately, I am not participating in this collaboration as I am focusing my energies on graduation this coming spring, so I will not see how this exchange plays out.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, how this is collaboration is being structured is that each composer gets paired with a scientist specializing in particular field. Dialog takes place between these two people; it is assumed the scientist has to teach the composer as much as they can about their particular area of research so that the composer gains a sufficient enough understanding on said area of research to write a piece. The purpose of this collaboration is to bring an awareness to the audience areas of scientific research as well as the data and impacts of climate change.
When it comes to incommensurability, I have tried to brainstorm how feasible it is getting across the message to an audience the topic of empirical scientific data through the hermeneutical vehicle of a musical piece. How do you write a piece about permafrost changes, about models of ocean-atmosphere interactions or even water movement through trees?
Besides writing accompaniment to lyrics describing these topics and issues or including recordings of animals and sounds of natural processes to tell a story though sound, it would require a high level creativity and a lot of collaborative learning to effectively get a message across to a listener.
I feel that in the physical sciences, like my Environmental Science major, climate change itself is less of a concern. The path to understanding the systems of our planet and how they interconnect is what allows us to try to understand climate change. That is one of the struggles that I have noticed in interdisciplinary. I often hear things like "the science has been done" or "we know what's going on, time to make change." While I agree that change is in order, I'm not so sure that we actually understand what's happening here. There is still so much to understand. Our projections of the future climate are produced by compiling model data. Models are just that, and each model has its flaws. The most important thing is that we are confident in our understanding of the direction of things, but don't quite have a grasp on the magnitude.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a struggle to communicate between the disciplines. There are sub-disciplines within each as well. Environmental science for example is a combination of many disciplines such as hydrology, biology, chemistry, and many others. The communication between these fields can sometimes see roadblocks as well. This means that commensurability between vastly differing disciplines and the ability to coordinate in a mission together poses a challenge.
Nature and the social seem to be compartmentalized differently in different disciplines. In the physical sciences, the social aspect is best kept seperate. I don’t think that this ends up working because scientists are human after all. Another way of looking at it is this: The social aspects of this can be described as human nature, which is just that… nature. De-compartmentalization of nature and social is important because they are connected at such a base level.
This world is made up of many different people. We don’t all communicate in the same way, with the same body language or even the same language. Even with so many differences between us there are universal manners of communication (a smile, music...). When it comes to climate change and blending of disciplines, it is like a translation of languages and mindset. The exchange of concepts and measures is essential to both the scientific world and the world of humanities. The expansion of these lines of communication will spawn needed procedures of adaptability as the earth, and all who live on it, further experience the impacts of climate change. I think that it is important to emphasize the idea Thomas Kuhn wrote about in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), incommensurability neither means nor implies incomparability.
ReplyDeleteI would consider my main concentration in my degree to be geography. However, within the four years of working toward my major, I have taken numerous classes in the sciences and humanities. I am glad that I have been able to learn and see the big concept that is geography through a social and physical aspect. Geography as a social science is more along the lines of politics and the economy of the world. While the physical side of geography is science based and more of the big landscape photo. For me, taking some classes where geography was a way to look at politics, (ex. my geography seminar class) I found myself lost and lacking motivation to do the readings and pay attention in class because those concepts just don't interest me as much as the science part of geography. I'm sure to a person whose major is political science would love a class such as that and not quite enjoy geomorphology or glaciology as much as I did. It is with the combining of both disciplines where we see real proof that both sides are relatable to each other and rely on each to make a point. It is the same way with all majors and fields of study and it is like that with climate change.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience as a sociology student, when it comes to climate change the focus tends to be on the relationship among peoples and their environment – how climate change affects societies and ways of life, and how societies and ways of life have contributed to the now irreversible state of the earth’s climate. We also examine how class, race, and gender affect people’s ability, or inability, to endure climate change. In my experience with sociology, the study of nature is not so much ecology, but rather the study of how people interact with nature, or the natural world.
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge divide among sciences in how we study the natural world. I think in order to bridge the gap in understanding, we have to value the different ways of knowing somewhat equally. Right now, within western science, the natural sciences are seen as more valid than the humanities, while empirical science is considered more legitimate than traditional ecological knowledge. Not only do we need to, but ethically we should value all ways of knowing.
My area of study is in marine biology so I figure I’ll use a marine species to express my thoughts on interdisciplinarity and climate change. Consider the polar bear - Ursus maritimus. As of 2008 the polar bear has been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), primarily due to the consistent decline in yearly Arctic sea-ice as a result of climate change. Just in the previous sentence are there three distinct objects from different disciplines: biology (Ursus maritimus), political and human science (ESA), and atmospheric science (sea-ice and climate change). The process of listing polar bears (or any species for that matter) is a rigorous one, requiring professional input from scientists (biologists, climatologists, glaciologists), humanity (people, activists, artists), and federal agencies (NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). I would say that here might be a place where ‘nature’ and the ‘social’ are compartmentalized. That is, when a matter such as listing a species under the ESA is compartmentalized adjacent to the endeavors of a private exploration and production company. Here comes into play the economy. I would also say this is a moment of incommensurability with regards to knowledge about climate change. The science behind climate change remains ultimately the same though different groups may have different standards toward climatic, biological, and environmental repercussions. Polar bears and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, sockeye salmon and Lake Iliamna, economic productivity or nature; so many issues in the world today are indubitably interdisciplinary though certain disciplines contrast others (such as climate science and petroleum exploration). I would say in a final opinion that climate change, like most other worldly concerns, requires interdisciplinarity across numerous fields (broad interdisciplinarity as described by Toadvine). Barriers such as lengthy political processes, variable standards among groups, and tunnel-vision resource extraction with no environmental concern, are necessary to overcome if progressive action is to be taken towards limiting the effects of climate change and a warming planet.
ReplyDeleteMary Hostetter
ReplyDeleteMy degree is in natural sciences with a focus on geology and biology, with a smattering of other coursework from other branches of biology. Through these courses, I have been able to see the world through various lenses and it is these lenses that I carry with me today and hope to throughout the future. Climate change is an all-encompassing issue that touches many different walks of life. Geology provides a long-term prospective on the processes of climate change and this offers some recourse for our current matter as a prediction of what may come to be. Biology has offered new insights to climate change in terms of organismal diversity, dispersal, and extinctions. It is with these two disciplines I try to view climate change.
The impact of climate change on biological systems is one we are all familiar with: mass global and local extinctions, an increase in protected species, changes in biodiversity overall. This may be relatively easy to communicate interdisciplinar-ily, but where within the argument does this sit? Is it as important as rising temperatures and sea levels? Probably not. I wonder if it's not an issue of lack of understanding between disciplines but an organizational issue where we need to prioritize better...yes, but that would require interdisciplinary understanding as well.
Geological impacts of climate change will be seen across the globe, whether it be drying out of a regionally wet environment, an increase in precipitation in areas usually dry, or a blend of any or all. The impact of climate change upon Earth will be recorded in Earth's geologic history and millions of years from now, whatever takes our place will see these abrupt changes.
Yes, it is hard to compare issues with these two disciplines, but that doesn't mean it has to be hard. I think in order to combat this, we should bridge the gap by introducing new ways to teach young school children. This isn't a fix-all, but if we began teaching multiple disciplines together, we might be able to encourage a new generation how to communicate effectively over different disciplines.
Interdisciplinary means being relevant to more than just one area of study. For me, Climate Change is exactly that. Climate change is much more than just the Atmospheric science, radiative forcing, and chemical reactions in the sky. It’s about relationships. It’s about the individual and the collective, it’s about resources, it’s about money, it’s a matter of fact and a matter of opinion. Climate Change on the surface may seem like an Environmental Scientists game, but in reality this crisis will shape every detail of our world as we know it.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I find this crisis as interdisciplinary is because the crisis for me goes far beyond rising carbon dioxide levels. It’s in the way we value the natural world. It’s in our way of resource disposal. It’s in our overfishing, overfarming, and overhunting. It’s the way we value resources over untouched space. It’s in the deepest crooks of our human perspective, and not just in the science.
The source perhaps is from a struggle for identity as a society, and the science is a crutch based off our observations. When I say “struggle for identity” I mean a disconnect from the natural environment, a blind sense a place, or a phony realism. This crisis goes far beyond what’s in the atmosphere, but is a manifestation of the engrained perspectives we call ‘the way of life’. It’s a manifestation of culture and our inability to see the broader scheme.
The anthropocene, in my eyes, is the process of realization that humankind can have wildly more success when we work in favor of nature instead against it. Infrastructures, cultures, and economies can be reshaped in a more wholistic and environmentally friendly manner. Perhaps ridding of economic inequality, mental illness, and global pollution.
I still find it hard to understand why people don’t consider climate change to be interdisciplinary. Climate change is a topic that should be looked at as completely interdisciplinary. You can’t simply look at it from one discipline and see everything there is to see, and all the effects and potential causes it has. It must be looked at through multiple disciplines because each discipline brings a piece that the other lacks. Everything is impacted by climate change. No discipline is left out. We all feel the effects of climate change. We may feel them differently, but they are felt nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that people from different disciplines, with differing beliefs, practically force incommensurability between themselves and others simply to keep their view intact. They would rather completely disregard another disciplines perspective on climate change, no matter how valid it may be, simply to keep their view and belief intact. I do not believe the disciplines themselves have these incommensurability’s. I believe once the disciplines are brought together, a better understanding is formed, and new theories and beliefs are formed, and that scares people. People are not good with change. If they are taught a certain way, and believe a certain thing for long enough, they will fight like cats and dogs to preserve that idea/belief they have. They aren’t willing to merge two separate ideas, and create a better one, simply because they don’t like change or the idea that they were not fully correct in the first place.
I also believe people struggle with being interdisciplinary in regards to climate change because we weren't taught how to do so. We are taught very early on, that math is math, science is science, English is english, and they were rarely, if ever, brought together. How can we expect people to view climate change in an interdisciplinary way, if we never teach them how to think that way in general. We need to rethink the ways in which we teach our youth, if we ever want to get anywhere with interdisciplinary studies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started school in 2017, I began at UAS with the intention of majoring in Biology and minoring in English My goal, or idea, was to pursue a career in communicating science to the public through whatever facet could lend itself to my cause. I was convinced that a bridge was needed to span the divides between science and the government, and science and the public. Now, though I am no longer pursuing a minor in English, the bridge between science and the public is needed more then ever. This is where interdisciplinarity comes into play.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of interdisciplinarity can seem strange and impossibly difficult. But, it is the only way to achieve the extreme shift that is needed to combat and prepare for the biophysical and socioeconomic shifts climate change will bring about. In order to be successful in everything from creating more stable infrastructure to educating communities on the inevitable dangers climate change will bring to government policies on emission reduction, communication and cooperation between disciplines is paramount. Pivoting our nations' view on the "issue" of climate change along will take a supreme effort; one that cannot be done only by scientists. Shifting the political and social mindset on climate change, as well as preparing the most at-risk communities, will require educators, social workers, engineers, writers, political scientists, and glaciologists alike.
No, perhaps a sociologist will never be able to think like a biologist and visa versa. But that may be able to communicate in a way that is concise and effective. In this way, the scope of professions educated and active in climate change grows. With that growth comes understanding, engagement, and ,hopefully, a future where climate change is at the top of our government's and our communities' priority list.
Oscar Jones
ReplyDeleteGeog 350
I find the interdisciplinary nature of climate change very important because it is, in essence, a global crisis which in turn must involve everyone of all backgrounds. This is especially relevant when looking at the societal structures that revolve around the natural world. Our view of nature is often one removed from it, however we are a part of nature and in turn should feel all the more pressured to understand this crisis. This background of sociological study must be able to communicate to the other fields such as scientific research which may be gathering the rough data which everyone needs to understand. Just as the communications experts must be able to explain that data in a fashion that is highly accepted and understood. This simplistic example shows already the interdisciplinary structure of this crisis and why diversifying what each individual understands can help acceptance of the crisis at hand.
With regards to scientific structure I think the removal of people from nature has been a major detriment because it allows a separation which makes it hard for individuals to feel any sympathy for what is happening around them because they are unaware of the effects it has on the environment and those individuals surrounding them. The Anthropocene may then become a very important structure of awakening. In which humankind may learn to work in cooperation with the natural world, and likely triumph as a species, rather than seeing nature as an opponent.
Carmen Soto
ReplyDeleteMy discipline combines geography and environmental resources. I think environmental resources and the management of those resources is inherently interdisciplinary. It is also very much tied to climate change, as the misuse and shortsightedness in management of natural resources is the number one contributor to climate change. If I’m being honest, there is a lot of confusing terminology in the question being posed and I’m having a hard time formulating thoughts I consider relevant to answering it, but I will do my best.
The use of interdisciplinary studies in climate change is essential to fully understanding the issue and taking action to mitigate its effects. One of the hardest aspects of interdisciplinary study, is communication throughout all the different disciplines. It would be ridiculous for one person to be an expert in every field needed to tackle climate change, however it is essential that those who are knowledgeable in each discipline come together and trust each other to comprise a full understanding of what is happening. Sometimes nature and social are compartmentalized when it comes to policy making. People come together with an agenda that more often than not ignores either natural aspects of a problem or social aspects of a problem, and work to only accomplish their ideas, it can lead to either nothing happening, *cough* congress *cough* or it can lead to policies that are completely one sided and cause more harm down the line. This is where interdisciplinary perspectives would cause a lot of benefit. I think part of the reason climate change is such a hard topic to approach and find solutions for is that everyone across the globe experiences it differently. Some places are more affected than others, and some places are not as concerned. The trick is getting a large amount of people form vastly different places to agree on the problem and solution even if that means implementing solutions that are unique to specific areas.