Skip to Main Content
Frequently Asked Questions
Submit an ETD
Global Search Box
Need Help?
Keyword Search
Participating Institutions
Advanced Search
School Logo
Files
File List
ucin1311605312.pdf (6.58 MB)
ETD Abstract Container
Abstract Header
Ecosystem Health Reconsidered
Author Info
Loo, Clement K.
Permalink:
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1311605312
Abstract Details
Year and Degree
2011, PhD, University of Cincinnati, Arts and Sciences: Philosophy.
Abstract
I argue that, contrary to claims made by ecologists such as Schaeffer, Rapport, and Costanza, a concept of ecosystem health would not serve as a foundation for assessment within the environmental sciences. Proponents of the concept of ecosystem health suggest that, given the complexity of biotic communities, a concept, such as ecosystem health, that identifies the most relevant factors for the environmental sciences would serve to guide research in such a manner that would generate the most useful results. However, when one considers the history of conservation biology and restoration ecology, one finds cases where conceptual foundations intended to focus research in fact can, when they are too broadly generalized, focus research upon the wrong factors. That is, preconceived notions regarding the issues that require the most attention can lead scientists to ignore factors that may be more important to addressing threats to the environment. This is the result of a failure to recognize the heterogeneity of the biological world. This can be seen in the influence of toxicological risk assessment protocols on research regarding the effects of PCB and DDT on wildlife during much of the 1970s and 1980s. These protocols, which emphasized carcinogenicity, led most researchers to ignore the potential of DDT and PCB to disrupt development and reproduction in numerous species. As such, it is a live question regarding whether the account of ecosystem health offered by Schaeffer, Rapport and Costanza will in fact accomplish its intended ends or is akin to toxicological protocols and will tend to lead researchers astray when it is applied broadly within the environmental sciences.
Committee
Robert Skipper, PhD (Committee Chair)
Stephen Matter, PhD (Committee Member)
Robert Richardson, PhD (Committee Member)
Pages
142 p.
Subject Headings
Philosophy
Keywords
ecosystem health
;
environmental science
;
endocrine disruption
;
ecological assessment
;
heterogeneous domains
Recommended Citations
Refworks
EndNote
RIS
Mendeley
Citations
Loo, C. K. (2011).
Ecosystem Health Reconsidered
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1311605312
APA Style (7th edition)
Loo, Clement.
Ecosystem Health Reconsidered.
2011. University of Cincinnati, Doctoral dissertation.
OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center
, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1311605312.
MLA Style (8th edition)
Loo, Clement. "Ecosystem Health Reconsidered." Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2011. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1311605312
Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)
Abstract Footer
Document number:
ucin1311605312
Download Count:
765
Copyright Info
© 2011, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by University of Cincinnati and OhioLINK.