Communicating climate change and biodiversity loss with local populations: exploring communicative utopias in eight transdisciplinary case studies.

Climate change and biodiversity loss trigger policies targeting and impacting local communities worldwide. However, research and policy implementation often fail to sufficiently consider community responses and to involve them. We present the results of a collective self-assessment exercise for eight case studies of communications with regard to climate change or biodiversity loss between project teams and local communities. We develop eight indicators of good stakeholder communication, reflecting the scope of Verran's (2002) concept of postcolonial moments as a communicative utopia. We demonstrate that applying our indicators can enhance communication and enable community responses. However, we discover a divergence between timing, complexity and (introspective) effort. Three cases qualify for postcolonial moments, but scrutinising power relations and genuine knowledge co-production remain rare. While we verify the potency of various instruments for deconstructing science, their sophistication cannot substitute trust building and epistemic/transdisciplinary awareness. Lastly, we consider that reforming inadequate funding policies helps improving the work in and with local communities.

New types of investments needed to address barriers to scaling up wildfire risk mitigation.

Background: Wildfire mitigation is becoming increasingly urgent, but despite the availability of mitigation tools, such as prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and mechanical thinning, the USA has been unable to scale up mitigation. Limited agency capacity, inability to work across jurisdictions, lack of public support, and procedural delays have all been cited as barriers to mitigation. But in the context of limited resources and increasing urgency, how should agencies prioritize investments to address these barriers? Results: To better understand different investments for scaling up mitigation, we examined how the wildfire problem is framed, building on existing social science demonstrating that agency approaches depend in part on how problems are framed. Using national-level policy documents and in-depth interviews, we found three ways of framing the barriers to scaling up mitigation, each emphasizing certain aspects of the problem and prioritizing different solutions or investments. The first framing, the Usual Suspects, focused on inadequate resources, cumbersome procedural requirements, delays due to litigation, and lack of public support. The solutions-to increase funding, streamline NEPA, limit litigation, and educate the public-suggest that more resources and fewer restrictions will enable agencies to scale up mitigation. The second framing, Agency-Agency Partnerships, focused on the ways that organizational structure and capacity constrain the development of effective cross-boundary collaboration. Here solutions prioritized organizational changes and capacity building to enable agencies to navigate different missions and build trust in order to develop shared priorities. The third framing, Engaging the Public, focused on lack of public support for mitigation, the need for meaningful public engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration, and investments to build support to scale up mitigation. Conclusions: This analysis reveals that investing in collaborative capacity to advance agency-agency partnerships and public engagement might not slow down mitigation, but rather enable agencies to "go slow to go fast" by building the support and mechanisms necessary to increase the pace and scale of mitigation work. Reframing the wildfire problem through a careful analysis of competing frames and the underlying assumptions that privilege particular solutions can reveal a broader suite of solutions that address the range of key barriers.

Antecedentes: La mitigación de incendios es una tarea urgente, aunque a pesar de la disponibilidad de herramientas de mitigación, tales como quemas prescriptas, manejo del fuego, y raleos mecánicos, EEUU no ha sido aún capaz de aumentar proporcionalmente la mitigación de sus incendios. Las limitaciones en las capacidades de las agencias, la inhabilidad de trabajar entre jurisdicciones, la falta de apoyo de la sociedad, y demoras en los procedimientos, han sido citados como barreras para la mitigación. Ahora bien, en el contexto de recursos limitados e incrementos en las urgencias, ¿cómo deberían las agencias priorizar las inversiones para enfrentar esas barreras? Resultados: Para entender mejor las distintas inversiones para aumentar proporcionalmente las tareas de mitigación, examinamos cómo el problema de los incendios es enmarcado y construido en la ciencia social existente, demostrando que los enfoques de las agencias dependen, en parte, en cómo esos problemas son abordados. Usando documentos de políticas públicas y entrevistas profundas e intuitivas, encontramos tres vías de enmarcar las barreras para aumentar proporcionalmente la mitigación, cada una enfocando ciertos aspectos del problema y priorizando diferentes soluciones o inversiones. El primer enfoque, las "Sospechas Habituales", estuvo orientado hacia la inadecuación de los recursos, procedimientos incómodos, demoras debidas a litigios, y la falta de respaldo público. Las soluciones -incrementar los recursos, simplificar los procedimientos de la ley ambiental, limitar los litigios, y educar al público- sugieren que más recursos y menos restricciones permitirán a las agencias aumentar proporcionalmente la mitigación. El segundo enfoque "Asociación Agencia-Agencia", se orientó en la forma en que la estructura organizacional y su capacidad condicionan el desarrollo de una colaboración efectiva entre agencias. La solución aquí prioriza los cambios organizacionales y la capacidad de construcción para permitir a las agencias acometer diferentes misiones y crear confianza para poder desarrollar prioridades compartidas. El tercer enfoque "Comprometer al Público" se enfoca en la falta de apoyo del público para la mitigación, y la necesidad de atraer al público y la colaboración de diferentes ciudadanos interesados, en realizar aportes necesarios para construir aportes para el desarrollo de prioridades de mitigación. Conclusiones: Este análisis revela que la inversión en capacidad colaborativa para avanzar en la asociación agencia-agencia y el compromiso público puede no reducir la mitigación, más sin embargo permitir a las agencias "ir despacio para ir más rápido" para construir el soporte y mecanismos necesarios para incrementar la velocidad y la escala del trabajo de mitigación. Reencuadrar el problema de los incendios forestales a través de un cuidadoso análisis de encajes competitivos y suposiciones subyacentes que privilegie soluciones particulares, puede revelar un más amplio conjunto de soluciones que atienda el rango de barreras claves.

Navigating Climate Adaptation on Public Lands: How Views on Ecosystem Change and Scale Interact with Management Approaches.

Managers are increasingly being asked to integrate climate change adaptation into public land management. The literature discusses a range of adaptation approaches, including managing for resistance, resilience, and transformation; but many strategies have not yet been widely tested. This study employed in-depth interviews and scenario-based focus groups in the Upper Gunnison Basin in Colorado to learn how public land managers envision future ecosystem change, and how they plan to utilize different management approaches in the context of climate adaptation. While many managers evoked the past in thinking about projected climate impacts and potential responses, most managers in this study acknowledged and even embraced (if reluctantly) that many ecosystems will experience regime shifts in the face of climate change. However, accepting that future ecosystems will be different from past ecosystems led managers in different directions regarding how to respond and the appropriate role of management intervention. Some felt management actions should assist and even guide ecosystems toward future conditions. Others were less confident in projections and argued against transformation. Finally, some suggested that resilience could provide a middle path, allowing managers to help ecosystems adapt to change without predicting future ecosystem states. Scalar challenges and institutional constraints also influenced how managers thought about adaptation. Lack of institutional capacity was believed to constrain adaptation at larger scales. Resistance, in particular, was considered impractical at almost any scale due to institutional constraints. Managers negotiated scalar challenges and institutional constraints by nesting different approaches both spatially and temporally.

Towards future-oriented conservation: Managing protected areas in an era of climate change.

Management of protected areas must adapt to climate impacts, and prepare for ongoing ecological transformation. Future-Proofing Conservation is a dialogue-based, multi-stakeholder learning process that supports conservation managers to consider the implications of climate change for governance and management. It takes participants through a series of conceptual transitions to identify new management options that are robust to a range of possible biophysical futures, and steps that they can take now to prepare for ecological transformation. We outline the Future-Proofing Conservation process, and demonstrate its application in a pilot programme in Colombia. This process can be applied and adapted to a wide range of climate adaptation contexts, to support practitioners in developing positive ways forward for management and decision-making. By acknowledging scientific uncertainty, considering social values, and rethinking the rules that shape conservation governance, participants can identify new strategies towards "future-oriented conservation" over the long term.

Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world.

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples' values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global-change-ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation.

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers-ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity-to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science-one that includes the natural and social sciences-will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Addendum: shiue, I.; et Al. 2014 future Earth young scientists conference on integrated science and knowledge co-production for ecosystems and human well-being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public health 2014, 11, 11553-11558.

The authors would like to add the following affiliation for Peter Søgaard Jørgensen of paper [1]:   8 International Network of Next-Generation Ecologists, Universitetsparken 15, Building 3, Copenhagen 2100, Denmark[...].

2014 Future Earth Young Scientists Conference on integrated science and knowledge co-production for ecosystems and human well-being.

Effective integration in science and knowledge co-production is a challenge that crosses research boundaries, climate regions, languages and cultures. Early career scientists are crucial in the identification of, and engagement with, obstacles and opportunities in the development of innovative solutions to complex and interconnected problems. On 25-31 May 2014, International Council for Science and International Social Science Council, in collaboration with the International Network of Next-Generation Ecologists and Institute for New Economic Thinking: Young Scholars Initiative, assembled a group of early career researchers with diverse backgrounds and research perspectives to reflect on and debate relevant issues around ecosystems and human wellbeing in the transition towards green economy, funded by the German Research Foundation, at Villa Vigoni, Italy. As a group of young scientists, we have come to a consensus that collaboration and communication among a diverse group of peers from different geographic regions could break down the barriers to multi-disciplinary research designed to solve complex global-scale problems. We also propose to establish a global systematic thinking to monitor global socio-ecological systems and to develop criteria for a "good" anthropocene. Finally, we aim to bridge gaps among research, the media, and education from a governance perspective linking with "sustainable development goals".

Collaboration and nested environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation.

The problem of fit between social institutions and ecological systems is an enduring challenge in natural resource management and conservation. Developments in the science of conservation biology encourage the management of landscapes at increasingly larger scales. In contrast, sociological approaches to conservation emphasize the importance of ownership, collaboration and stewardship at scales relevant to the individual or local community. Despite the proliferation of initiatives seeking to work with local communities to undertake conservation across large landscapes, there is an inherent tension between these scales of operation. Consequently, questions about the changing nature of effective conservation across scales abound. Through an analysis of three nested cases working in a semiautonomous fashion in the Northern Rocky Mountains in North America, this paper makes an empirical contribution to the literature on nested governance, collaboration and communication across scales. Despite different scales of operation, constituencies and scale frames, we demonstrate a surprising similarity in organizational structure and an implicit dependency between these initiatives. This paper examines the different capacities and capabilities of collaborative conservation from the local to regional to supra regional. We draw on the underexplored concept of 'scale-dependent comparative advantage' (Cash and Moser, 2000), to gain insight into what activities take place at which scale and what those activities contribute to nested governance and collaborative conservation. The comparison of these semiautonomous cases provides fruitful territory to draw lessons for understanding the roles and relationships of organizations operating at different scales in more connected networks of nested governance.

A reflective lens: applying critical systems thinking and visual methods to ecohealth research.

Critical systems methodology has been advocated as an effective and ethical way to engage with the uncertainty and conflicting values common to ecohealth problems. We use two contrasting case studies, coral reef management in the Philippines and national park management in Australia, to illustrate the value of critical systems approaches in exploring how people respond to environmental threats to their physical and spiritual well-being. In both cases, we used visual methods--participatory modeling and rich picturing, respectively. The critical systems methodology, with its emphasis on reflection, guided an appraisal of the research process. A discussion of these two case studies suggests that visual methods can be usefully applied within a critical systems framework to offer new insights into ecohealth issues across a diverse range of socio-political contexts. With this article, we hope to open up a conversation with other practitioners to expand the use of visual methods in integrated research.