Scientists in exile.

Since 2001, the United Nations has designated 20 June as World Refugee Day. It seeks to raise awareness of refugees-currently estimated to be more than 114 million persons internally displaced, exiled, or on the move-and the often-harsh conditions they confront around the world. Among them are scientists, giving the scientific community a special responsibility to protect and support these colleagues. It is not just scientists and their families whose lives are disrupted, but science as an enterprise as well.

A framework for research on recurrent acute disasters.

Disaster science examines the causes, behaviors, and consequences of hazardous events, from hurricanes to wildfires, flooding, and major industrial accidents. Individual disasters are recurring more frequently and with greater intensity. Recurrent acute disasters (RADs) are sequential disasters that affect a specific locale over time. While disaster science has matured in recent years, understanding of the distinctive characteristics of RADs varies by discipline and lacks predictive power. A theoretical framework is presented by borrowing in part from mathematical topology and disturbance ecology. The recurrent disasters affecting Puerto Rico 2017-2020 are examined as a case example to test the framework. A key variable is the complex characteristics of legacy conditions created by one disaster that influence the effects of subsequent disasters. Substantial improvements in disaster response, recovery, and preparedness can be gained by adopting a RAD-based approach.

The Role of GeoHealth in Science During Crisis.

The likelihood that crisis events will increase in number and severity is significant. Science has served, and will continue to serve, to address crisis events, whether natural or human attributed. Science during crisis has distinctive requirements. A call to action for science during crisis has been made, and described here are recommendations for response by scientists, including those in disciplines associated with GeoHealth.

Optimism and challenge for science-based conservation of migratory species in and out of U.S. National Parks.

Public agencies sometimes seek outside guidance when capacity to achieve their mission is limited. Through a cooperative agreement and collaborations with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), we developed recommendations for a conservation program for migratory species. Although NPS manages ∼ 36 million hectares of land and water in 401 units, there is no centralized program to conserve wild animals reliant on NPS units that also migrate hundreds to thousands of kilometers beyond parks. Migrations are imperiled by habitat destruction, unsustainable harvest, climate change, and other impediments. A successful program to counter these challenges requires public support, national and international outreach, and flourishing migrant populations. We recommended two initial steps. First, in the short term, launch or build on a suite of projects for high-profile migratory species that can serve as proof to demonstrate the centrality of NPS units to conservation at different scales. Second, over the longer term, build new capacity to conserve migratory species. Capacity building will entail increasing the limited knowledge among park staff about how and where species or populations migrate, conditions that enable migration, and identifying species' needs and resolving them both within and beyond parks. Building capacity will also require ensuring that park superintendents and staff at all levels support conservation beyond statutory borders. Until additional diverse stakeholders and a broader American public realize what can be lost and do more to protect it and engage more with land management agencies to implement actions that facilitate conservation, long distance migrations are increasingly likely to become phenomena of the past.

Warfare in biodiversity hotspots.

Conservation efforts are only as sustainable as the social and political context within which they take place. The weakening or collapse of sociopolitical frameworks during wartime can lead to habitat destruction and the erosion of conservation policies, but in some cases, may also confer ecological benefits through altered settlement patterns and reduced resource exploitation. Over 90% of the major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred within countries containing biodiversity hotspots, and more than 80% took place directly within hotspot areas. Less than one-third of the 34 recognized hotspots escaped significant conflict during this period, and most suffered repeated episodes of violence. This pattern was remarkably consistent over these 5 decades. Evidence from the war-torn Eastern Afromontane hotspot suggests that biodiversity conservation is improved when international nongovernmental organizations support local protected area staff and remain engaged throughout the conflict. With biodiversity hotspots concentrated in politically volatile regions, the conservation community must maintain continuous involvement during periods of war, and biodiversity conservation should be incorporated into military, reconstruction, and humanitarian programs in the world's conflict zones.