Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience.

Mitigating the environmental effects of global population growth, climatic change and increasing socio-ecological complexity is a daunting challenge. To tackle this requires synthesis: the integration of disparate information to generate novel insights from heterogeneous, complex situations where there are diverse perspectives. Since 1995, a structured approach to inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary(1) collaboration around big science questions has been supported through synthesis centres around the world. These centres are finding an expanding role due to ever-accumulating data and the need for more and better opportunities to develop transdisciplinary and holistic approaches to solve real-world problems. The Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS ) has been the pioneering ecosystem science synthesis centre in the Southern Hemisphere. Such centres provide analysis and synthesis opportunities for time-pressed scientists, policy-makers and managers. They provide the scientific and organisational environs for virtual and face-to-face engagement, impetus for integration, data and methodological support, and innovative ways to deliver synthesis products. We detail the contribution, role and value of synthesis using ACEAS to exemplify the capacity for synthesis centres to facilitate trans-organisational, transdisciplinary synthesis. We compare ACEAS to other international synthesis centres, and describe how it facilitated project teams and its objective of linking natural resource science to policy to management. Scientists and managers were brought together to actively collaborate in multi-institutional, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary research on contemporary ecological problems. The teams analysed, integrated and synthesised existing data to co-develop solution-oriented publications and management recommendations that might otherwise not have been produced. We identify key outcomes of some ACEAS working groups which used synthesis to tackle important ecosystem challenges. We also examine the barriers and enablers to synthesis, so that risks can be minimised and successful outcomes maximised. We argue that synthesis centres have a crucial role in developing, communicating and using synthetic transdisciplinary research.

The usefulness of a threat and disturbance categorization developed for Queensland wetlands to environmental management, monitoring, and evaluation.

There is no comprehensive system of describing threats and disturbances currently used in Australia, despite the widespread impacts of human activities on natural ecosystems. Yet a detailed categorization would facilitate the collation of threatening process information into information systems; enable standardized collection and availability of data; and enable comparative analyses of ecosystem condition between stakeholders, agencies, states, and nations, particularly for environmental reporting and evaluation mechanisms such as State of the Environment. As part of the Queensland Wetlands Programme (QWP), a threat and disturbance framework was developed, focused on the pressure and impacts components of the DPSIR (driver-pressure-state-impacts-response) framework. A wetland inventory database was developed also that included a detailed threat and disturbance categorization using the QWP framework. The categorization encompasses a broad range of anthropogenic and natural processes, and is hierarchical to accommodate varying levels of detail or knowledge. By incorporating detailed qualitative and quantitative information, a comprehensive threats and disturbances categorization can contribute to conceptual or spatially explicit knowledge and management assessments. The application of the framework and categorization to several threatening processes is demonstrated, and its relationship to current natural resource condition indicators is discussed. Threat evaluation is an essential component of ecological assessment and environmental management, and a standardized categorization enables consistency in attributing processes, impacts and their short- to long-term consequences. Such a systematic framework and categorization demonstrates the importance and usefulness of comprehensive approaches, and this approach can be readily adapted to management, monitoring and evaluation of other target ecosystems and biota.