Abstract Clive Spash proposes a classification of ecological economists in three camps, “social ecological economists” (SEE), “new resource economists” (NRE), and “new environmental pragmatists” (NEP). Even if this classification describes the communities of the field and their main scientific strategies with an intuitive perspective, we have three concerns with it. First, this classification is more a normative view of what Spash thinks ecological economics should be rather than a positive description of the field; SEE are presented as the “good” ecological economists, whereas NRE are depicted as “bad” neoclassical economists, and NEP as “ugly” environmentalists ready to use economic tools and concepts to serve ecological conservation purpose. Next, it seems to us that the classification is not based on a so clear epistemic criterion, leading to blind spots and double belongings, especially for transdisciplinary works, concepts, and models. It also underestimates the role of the scientific ecology in the field. Finally, it appears to us that this description of what should be a genuine ecological economist leads to delegitimize methodological and conceptual pluralism in the field and the journal Ecological Economics.

中文翻译：

---

生态经济学家：好的，坏的，丑陋的？

摘要 Clive Spash 将生态经济学家分为三个阵营：“社会生态经济学家”（SEE）、“新资源经济学家”（NRE）和“新环境实用主义者”（NEP）。即使这种分类从直观的角度描述了该领域的社区及其主要科学策略，我们也有三个关注点。首先，这种分类更像是对斯帕什认为生态经济学应该是什么的规范观点，而不是对该领域的积极描述；SEE 被描述为“好”的生态经济学家，而 NRE 被描述为“坏”的新古典经济学家，而 NEP 被描述为准备使用经济工具和概念来服务生态保护目的的“丑陋”的环保主义者。接下来，在我们看来，分类并不是基于如此清晰的认知标准，导致盲点和双重归属，特别是对于跨学科的作品、概念和模型。它还低估了科学生态学在该领域的作用。最后，在我们看来，这种对什么应该是真正的生态经济学家的描述导致该领域和《生态经济学》杂志上的方法论和概念多元化的合法化。