ecological science and sustainability for a crowded planet · ecological science and sustainability...

Ecological Science and Sustainabilityfor a Crowded Planet

21st Century Vision and Action Plan for theEcological Society of America

Report from the Ecological Visions Committee*to the Governing Board of the Ecological Society of America

April 2004

*Margaret A. Palmer1, Emily S.Bernhardt2, Elizabeth A. Chornesky3,Scott L. Collins4, Andrew P. Dobson5, Clifford S. Duke6, Barry D. Gold7,

Robert. Jacobson8, Sharon Kingsland9, Rhonda Kranz6, Michael J Mappin10,M. Luisa Martinez11, Fiorenza Micheli12, Jennifer L. Morse1, Michael L Pace13, Mercedes Pascual14,

Stephen Palumbi12, O.J. Reichman15, Alan Townsend16, and Monica G. Turner17

www.esa.org/ecovisions

Executive SummaryEnvironmental issues will define the 21st Century, as will a world with a large human population andecosystems that are increasingly shaped by human intervention. The science of ecology can and shouldplay a greatly expanded role in ensuring a future in which natural systems and the humans they includecoexist on a more sustainable planet. Ecological science can use its extensive knowledge of natural systemsto develop a greater understanding of how to manage, restore, and create the ecosystems that can deliverthe key ecological services that sustain life on our planet. To accomplish this, ecologists will have to forgepartnerships at scales and in forms they have not traditionally used. These alliances must implement actionplans within three visionary areas: enhance the extent to which decisions are ecologically informed; advanceinnovative ecological research directed at the sustainability of an over-populated planet; and stimulatecultural changes within the science itself that build a forward-looking and international ecology.

New partnerships and large-scale, cross-cutting activities will be key to incorporating ecologicalsolutions in sustainability. We recommend a four-pronged research initiative, to be built on new andexisting programs, to enhance research project development, facilitate large-scale experiments anddata collection, and link science to solutions. We emphasize the need to improve interactions amongresearchers, managers, and decision makers. Building public understanding of the links betweenecosystem services and human well-being is essential. We urge the development of a major publicinformation campaign to bring issues and raise awareness of ecological sustainability before thegeneral public.

Specific recommendations for each visionary area will support rapid progress. Standardization ofdata collection, data documentation, and data sharing is long overdue and should be kick-startedthrough a data registry, easy access to metadata, and graduate and professional training of ecologistsin ecoinformatics. A rapid response team that draws on ecological expertise in responding tolegislative and executive branch proposals would result in a larger role for ecological knowledgeand ecological scientists in the legislative and policy processes that impact sustainability. We must developresources that will help ecologists and collaborators from other sciences work together more effectively. Ameeting of key leaders in research, management, and business should be convened to produce a plan tocreate reward systems for ecological researchers and educators, as well as to foster collaborations. Weneed more global access to ecological knowledge. This effort could be started through routine translationof key ecological articles from non-English to English and vice versa. In addition, strategies to ease theexchange of students, managers and practitioners among institutions in various countries should beimplemented.

The three visionary areas and the recommendations to achieve them will provide a framework foradvancing ecological research and ensuring it plays a key role in public and private discourse. Themost critical vision area is the first: building an informed public. The results of simultaneouslyaddressing our recommendations for the three visionary areas will be an ecological science marked bystrong regional and global partnerships that will be instrumental in the move toward a more sustainablefuture for ecosystems and the humans they support.

2

Committee Member Addresses: 1Department of Entomology, Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4454, [email protected]; 2De-partment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC; 3P.O. Box 22665,Carmel, CA; 4Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albu-querque, NM; 5Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; 6Office of Science Programs, Eco-logical Society of America, Washington, DC; 7The David and LucilePackard Foundation, Los Altos, CA; 8U.S. Geological Survey–CERC,Columbia, MO; 9Department of the History of Science and Technology,Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; 10University of Calgary,Kananaskis Field Stations, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 11Departamento deEcologia Vegetal, Instituto de Ecologia, A.C., Xalapa, Mexico; 12Depart-ment of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Hopkins Marine Sta-tion, Pacific Grove, CA 93950; 13Institute of Ecosystem Studies,Millbrook, NY; 14Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Uni-versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 15Department of Ecology, Evolu-tion, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA;16Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO; 17De-partment of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 2

History and Approach of the Ecological Visions Committee ......................................... 5

The Need for an Action Plan .................................................................................................. 7

VISION 1: ................................................................................................................................ 10Action Areas for Informing Decisions with Ecological Knowledge (ID) .............. 11

Area A: Integrate advances in ecological knowledge into policy and management decisions that affect ecological sustainability ..................................................... 11Area B: Foster a thoughtful public today and educate generations of tomorrow so that the best ecological knowledge informs individual choices about sustainability. ....................................................................................................... 14

Summary: Informing Decisions ...................................................................................... 18

VISION 2: ................................................................................................................................ 19Action Areas for Advancing Innovative and Anticipatory Research (AR) .............. 20

Area A. Build the intellectual and technical infrastructure for ecology. .......................... 20Area B. Create new incentives to recognize and encourage anticipatory and innovative research ............................................................................................. 25Area C. Promote the standardization of data collection, data documentation, and data sharing. .................................................................................................. 27

Summary – Innovative and Anticipatory Research ..................................................... 29

VISION 3: ................................................................................................................................ 30Action Areas for Stimulating Cultural Changes for the Ecological Sciences (CC) ... 31

Area A. Capture, translate and disseminate knowledge on successful collaboration. .... 31Area B. Broaden the human and disciplinary dimensions of ecology. ............................. 32Area C. Forge international linkages among ecological scientists and globalize access to ecological knowledge. ......................................................................... 34

Summary – Cultural Change ........................................................................................... 36

Literature Cited..................................................................................................................... 37

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 41

Appendix 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ 43

Appendix 2: Summary of Committee Meetings .............................................................. 45

Appendix 3: Ecological Visions Breakfast Briefings ..................................................... 48

Appendix 4: Summary of Responses to the Web-based Survey ..................................... 51

4

History and Approach of the Ecological Visions Committee

After significant input from our membership andmany individuals and organizations outside ESA,we chose to focus our action plan on three areas:building an informed public; advancinginnovative, anticipatory research; andstimulating cultural changes that foster aforward-looking and international ecology. Theactions we recommend will require commitmentand hard work, including collaboration and newpartnerships among the ESA and other societies,

ESA created the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (SBI) as “a call to arms for all ecologists,” andalso to “serve as a means to communicate with individuals in other disciplines with whom ecologistsmust join forces to address our common predicament.” It called for acquiring ecological knowledge,communicating that knowledge to citizens, and incorporating that knowledge into policy andmanagement decisions. (Lubchenco et al. 1991). The Initiative has influenced and informed muchof ESA’s efforts since 1991.

Box 1The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative

The desire to develop a sustainable future and thescience to accomplish this is widespread, and hasbeen an explicit goal of the Ecological Society ofAmerica (ESA) for over a decade. The SustainableBiosphere Initiative (Box 1) was produced by theESA in an effort to highlight the key role of basicecological research and articulate ecologicalresearch priorities related to global change,biological diversity, and strategies for sustainableecological systems. Considerable effort has beenand continues to be devoted to the first twopriorities, yet we still have only a rudimentaryunderstanding of what is needed for sustainableecological systems, even though such systems arerequired for a vast array of vital ecosystem services(Kates et al. 2001, Cash et al. 2003). We findourselves in the earliest stages of understandingsustainability.

In 2002, the Governing Board of the ESAcharged a commitee with preparing an action planthat would accelerate our progress in addressingthe major environmental challenges of our timeand increase the contribution of ecologicalscience in the coming decades. The SBImotivated the committee’s work, but our chargewas to develop an action plan for the Societyand for the future of ecological science in general.We were not asked to identify the most critical

research questions nor to prioritize a list ofresearch topics. This has already been veryeffectively accomplished by many highlyesteemed groups and our committee agrees withtheir general assessment (Box 2). In initiating ourwork as a committee, we fully embraced theviews expressed by the ESA Governing Boardin 2003 under the leadership of President PamelaMatson:

...to make progress insolving the majorenvironmental challengesand ensure that ecologicalscience contributes to amore sustainable world, abold and specific actionplan is needed….

5

organizations, agencies, and the business sector.Furthermore, these partnerships should beinternational in scope and in focus.

Our recommended actions cover a largerange: from big-scale, long-term, high-budgetprojects to smaller tasks that could beundertaken immediately with few additionalresources. We did not shy away from thelarger, more ambitious activities; we believethey represent the scale at which we as acommunity must think and act in order toachieve sustainability science. We envisionthe ESA playing a significant role in all of theactions we propose. That role may range fromfacilitator or champion of activities thatrequire multiple partners and significantresources to sole implementer of actions that

can be accomplished within existing ESAstructures.

The recommended actions represent theconclusions we reached after many hours ofwork as a committee. We received extensiveinput from numerous groups (government,non-governmental organizations [NGOs], thebusiness sector), individuals, and manymembers of our Society, including theGoverning Board itself. The input varied fromone-on-one discussions to group meetingsamong the committee members (Appendix 2),breakfast briefings in Washington, DC withagency, NGO, and industry representatives(Appendix 3), presentations from federalagency and NGO representatives (Appendix2), as well as email correspondence and inputfrom a web survey of the ESA membership(Appendix 4).

Box 2Critical Environmental Issues for Prioritizing Ecological Research*

The science of ecosystem servicesBiodiversity, species composition, and ecosystem functioningEcological aspects of biogeochemical cyclesEcological implications of climate changeEcology and evolution of infectious diseasesInvasive speciesLand use and habitat alterationFreshwater resources and coastal environments

6

* This list was compiled by the ESA Ecological Visions committee after reviewing numerous reports (seehttp://www.esa.org/ecovisions/ev_projects/ref_documents.php). Issues are not listed in order of priorityand reflect committee views and particularly input from two reports: NRC (2003), NSF-ERE (2003).

As we enter the 21st Century, wide recognitionexists that humans have altered virtually all of Earth’secological systems. Few places remain that rightlycould be called pristine. People and their institutionsneed wood, so even the most remote rain forestshave been logged to the point of exhaustion(Kremen et al. 2000). The need for energy andtransportation has led to increases in atmosphericcarbon dioxide,methane, and nitrous oxides (NRC2000, IPCC 2001). Earth’s supply of water hasremained finite, but the usable amount has declined;almost all freshwater bodies are degraded or wateris being siphoned off at rates that are leading tototal depletion in some regions (Gleick 2003),threatening fierce cross-border disputes. We areprofoundly degrading the health of Earth’secosystems.

The impacts that humans make on the environmentare clearly at odds with the fact that humans dependon a diverse array of natural services that can beprovided only by healthy ecosystems (Daily 1997).The challenge is to preserve these vital services asthe world’s human population soars and as nationsand their inhabitants quite naturally seek to improve

The Need for an Action Plan

their standard of living. The issues are not justoverpopulation but over-exploitation of naturalresources, particularly by peoples of the developedworld such as the United States.

Human population size reached 6 billion in thespring of 2004, according to the United Nations.growth projections suggest that even if the growthrate does taper off , as expected , the momentumof previous population growth means that by theend of the century, the world’s ecosystems will haveto support 8–11 billion people (Lutz et al. 2001).However, from the perspective of ecologicalsustainability, it is difficult to see any future scenariothat would support this many people at today’s ratesof resource consumption (Dobkowski andWallimann 2002). Even given the currentpopulation level, the ability of global ecosystemsto sustain humans is quickly being eroded andexceeded in many places. Meanwhile, Earth’s abilityto produce goods and services is being degradedfurther. Thus, regardless of the ultimate humanpopulation size, new thinking and new solutions areneeded now to ensure a planet that can sustain aburgeoning human population.

7

Box 3Sustainability

“Sustainable,” from the Latin sustinere, means to keep in existence. The term “sustainabledevelopment” came into general use with the 1980 publication of the World Conservation Strategyby the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The term gained wide currency eightyears later with the release of Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, better known as the Bruntland Commission. There have been many variations on thedefinition of the word.

This report adopts the definition used by the National Research Council: “meeting human needswhile conserving the Earth’s life support systems and reducing hunger and poverty” (NRC 1999).

Ecologists traditionally have paid greatattention to Earth’s least disturbed areas—the rain forests, islands, wildernesses. Theirresearch has produced immensely significantinsights into complex ecological interactions.This valuable work has uniquely positionedresearchers to create an ecology of the future:a science that reshapes the view of keyecological questions and a science thatexplicitly recognizes and incorporates thedominant influence of humans. It is time forecology and ecologists to enter a new andcritically important phase, one that requirescrucial changes in thoughts and actions.

We believe that ecologists (and environmentalscientists generally, as well as decision makers)must accept the inevitability of a planet with a vastlyincreased population and over-exploited resources.All must incorporate into their thinking, planningand research the irrepressible tendency of humansto modify their world. That tendency may declineas Earth’s precarious position becomes betterunderstood by its inhabitants. But until that happens,our thinking must reflect today’s reality.

The ecology of the future must become moreresponsive to, and respectful of, the huge humanfootprint. Ecological knowledge can and must playa central role in helping achieve a world in whichhuman populations exist within sustainableecological systems. This is not a utopian view, buta realistic one. It need not invite despair. It doesrequire that sound, problem-driven environmentalscience and forecasting become criticalcomponents of decision making. And it requiresan acknowledgement that a more sustainable futurewill involve some combination of conserved,restored, and invented ecological solutions.

Thus, we argue for a more forward-looking andinternational ecological science focused onhow natural systems and the large humanpopulations they support can coexist on amore sustainable planet. We call this

Ecological Science and Sustainability for aCrowded Planet. It is based on the views that:1) the rich history of basic ecological researchprovides us with a strong foundation formoving forward in sustainability science; and2) the central role that ecological science mustplay in the future of our planet places a uniqueresponsibility on ecologists to develop andimplement plans of action. The central goalmust be to chart an understanding of howecosystems help sustain humans and theecological services they value and how we canbalance conservation, restoration, anddesigned solutions to ensure that nature’sservices continue into the future.

The need for an action plan stems in part from thefact that thus far ecological science has not beencharacterized by regional and global partnershipsfor advancing research that can influence issues ofsustainability. Nor has it been particularly effectivein informing decisions that affect our environment.We need to bolster research, but perhaps moreimportantly, we need to communicate our sciencemuch more effectively than we have in the past.Major changes in ecological science have alreadylaid the foundation for these changes, since manyecologists who once concentrated their researchon systems with “minimal” human influence are nowfocusing on how humans interface with nature(Povilitis 2001, Turner et al. 2003) and are nowconsidering the relevance of their work for policy.The community must, however, go one step further.

Unparalleled interactions with physical andsocial scientists, as well as the public, policy,and corporate sectors, are required, as aremajor new initiatives across the three frontier actionareas that are described below. Indeed, regionaland global partnerships will be required to implementmany of the actions that we recommend. The ESAcannot and should not attempt by itself toimplement those actions that need input,perspectives, and resources from diverse groupsaround the world. However, because of its

8

9

international political influence and itsdisproportionate consumption of non-renewablenatural resources and disproportionate release ofglobally-transmitted pollutants (UNEP 1999), theUS and its ecologists have a particular responsibilityto initiate such partnerships.

Many current efforts at the international level arealready ongoing but they should be enhanced andshould play a significant role in these partnerships.For example, the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (MA) is an international work programlaunched by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan inJune 2001. Its goal is to provide scientificinformation on the consequences of ecosystemchange to decision makers and the public (MA2003). Similarly, the Resilience Alliance (2004) hasan international program to assist in thedevelopment of theory and solutions for managingsocial-ecological systems.

Partnerships between researchers and governmentagencies are also important, as agencies have theresources to help implement new research

programs and to understand from their perspectivethe critical problems that we need to respond to oranticipate. For example, in implementation of theEndangered Species Act, US government agenciesset specific ecological information requirements,and, in the process, very effectively framed gaps incurrent knowledge (Levy 2003). Multinationalinitiatives such as the Pan-European Biological andLandscape Diversity program represent innovativepartnerships between governmental and non-governmental groups that also bridge science,policy, and economics in order to protectbiodiversity. These programs and many others areripe for more science and more participation onthe part of the ecological scientific community.

We now turn to the three visionary themes withassociated actions—informing decisions withecological knowledge, advancing innovative andanticipatory research, and stimulating culturalchange. Without progress in all three areas, we willnot achieve the goals of bolstering ecological scienceand sustainability for our crowded planet.

Rationale

Ecologists and current ecological knowledgepresently play only marginal roles in many, if notmost, of the daily decisions that affect ecologicalsustainability (NRC 2001, Walters 1998). Suchdecisions include the choices individual citizensmake about how they use resources, from whetheror not to recycle a soda can, to which car topurchase, to how to dispose of manure from theirchicken farms. Those decisions also includepeople’s perceptions of the the actions of agenciesentrusted with environmental stewardship.Decisions about land and natural resourcemanagement, ecological restoration, technologydevelopment, and the regulation of environmentalhazards are made by government agenciesoperating at the local, state, provincial, national,and international levels.

The translation of ecological knowledge into a formthat is accurate and serviceable for policy,management, or education purposes is oftendelayed. This lag between advances in ecologicalscience and integration of these advances intodecision making occurs for several reasons(Bradshaw and Borchers 2000). Ecological sciencedoes not always answer the questions that matterto user groups because the research communitydoes not understand such needs or recognize themas priorities. One consequence is that the decision

VISION 1:

INFORM DECISIONS WITH ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE1

Vision Statement: The science of ecology is poised to provide the scientific insights crucial to thesustainable management of our planet and its resources. To meet this challenge, ecological knowledgemust underpin the decisions that affect ecological sustainability and this integration must occur atall levels of society worldwide.

1 As noted by the International Council for Science (ICSU), “inform” implies three interacting processes: “Ecological knowledge helpsto ‘inform’ decision-making at all levels, decisions are ‘informed’ by the best ecological knowledge available, and future research can be‘informed’ by needs and concerns of decision makers.” (ICSU 2002). “Knowledge” can be considered information that changes behavioreither by motivating or changing capacity for action (see Allen 1999). Information dissemination may have impact on awareness, butnot necessarily behavior or action (Allen 1999). Therefore, communication, education, and capacity-building are required to effectchange in integration of ecological knowledge into decisionmaking at all levels.

makers may not view ecology as relevant (Cash etal. 2003); therefore, ecologists do not always havea “seat at the table” in contexts in which they couldmake fundamental contributions. The situation canbe changed, but it will require new ways ofidentifying scientific priorities and new ways ofcommunicating ecological knowledge, both withinour own countries and across international borders.It is no longer enough to just do the science; thenew knowledge must be conveyed in a way thatallows policy makers to translate the science intoactions (Cash et al. 2003), as well as convincesthose policy makers that action is important. Andthe knowledge must be globalized so that accessto worldwide ecological information is easy toobtain.

Relatively few people or institutions routinelytranslate ecological information and concepts intoknowledge that is directly applicable to real-worlddecisions—or, conversely, identify sciencequestions based on user needs. Understanding andappreciation of the significance of these functionsis generally low among the general public anddecision makers (Cash et al. 2003). In the vacuumthat is left, an increasing number of organizations,ranging from environmental nonprofits to industrylobbyists, are aggressively marketing mission-driven messages and information about theenvironment. Many users and members of thepublic now gather information from a variety of

10

Action Areas for Informing Decisions (ID) with Ecological Knowledge

A. Integrate advances in ecological knowledge into policy and management decisions that affect ecological sustainability.

B. Promote a thoughtful public today and educate future generations so that the public can use the best ecological knowledge when making individual choices about sustainability.

sources, ranging from peer-reviewed journalarticles, to materials that present self-servinginterests, to news accounts, to both well-documented and unattributed Web pages. As aresult, decision makers, managers, educators, andthe public may have difficulty discriminating amongthe differing objectives and scientific reliability ofthese sources.

Institutions such as the ESA have a critical role toplay in ensuring that science-based informationabout ecological sustainability is accessible todecision makers at all levels and that this informationis framed globally. Environmental policies set bythe US that do not consider environmental impactsacross international borders are not adequate. Werecommend a two-part strategy, which wedescribe as action areas, to greatly acceleratethe integration of ecological knowledge andecologists into decision making, management,and educational processes that affectecological sustainability. Each action areatargets a different, but equally important, part ofthe problem.

Area A: Integrate advances in ecologicalknowledge into policy and managementdecisions that affect ecological sustainability.

A growing consensus has emerged worldwide that,as might be expected, better environmentaldecisions occur when choices are informed bydialogue among scientists, policy makers, and thepublic (OST and Wellcome Trust 2001, Parsons2001, Worcester 2002, 2000). Nevertheless,

existing processes affecting ecological sustainabilityhave yielded mixed success in integrating currentecological science. For example, these processesdo not always pull in the appropriate experts: forvarious reasons, ecologists do not participate inmany sustainability issues that have significantecological components. Moreover, those scientistswho are involved may have limited opportunity tooffer their ideas or may not understand the policyor management context fully enough to provideuseful advice.

The problem does not lie solely with the scientists.The users of ecological knowledge often do notunderstand the full range of information orconceptual insights that ecologists might provide(Alpert and Keller et al. 2003). There are severalpossible reasons for ecology’s lack of “a seat” atthe decision-making table; other scientific fields mayhave co-opted ecology’s role. Ecology is arelatively new discipline, and it still suffers in somecircles from not being recognized as a “real”science. By definition, ecology is (or should be) amultidisciplinary undertaking, and this may frustrate

11

decision makers who seek simple, “magic bullet”answers. And sometimes ecologists fail to assertthemselves in policy matters.

Over the years, ecologists have created a hugeknowledge base, but they do not always advertiseits availability or know how to present it tononscientists in comprehendible form. If ecologicalknowledge is to be better integrated into publicpolicy and management choices, there must be

better communication and collaboration betweenecologists and the people who develop the policiesand manage the resources.

Recommended Actions:

ID Action 1. Establish an internationalnetwork of Centers for the EcologicalImplementation of Solutions (CEIS). (also seeAR Action 1 below and Box 5). Building on existingexpertise and infrastructure within the ESA andother professional societies, government, andprivate institutions and programs, CEIS wouldfoster partnerships among researchers, managers,and decision makers to actively develop anddisseminate relevant new information to theappropriate audiences. Various developmentalmethods (e.g., workshops, working groups) andoutreach methods (e.g., Web-based materials,white papers) would be used to build support forthe centers.

The media should not be overlooked. Not all of itsmembers are responsible or have the time orinclination to determine the relevance of complexecological information. But some are, and theycomplain that their editors lack interest in storiesthat do not promise miracle breakthroughs or cannot be told in a few words. Ecologists shouldcultivate relationships with the more thoughtfulreporters and editors.

The centers would play a pivotal role in linkingresearch scientists with managers to ensure a broadunderstanding of the science that is needed to takeus toward a more sustainable future. The centerswould address policy and management issues atlocal to international scales by involvinginterdisciplinary groups of scientists and managersin solving shared problems.

Such an approach would provide valuable forumsfor connecting ecological science to its applicationsin policy and management issues that affect

sustainability. Projects hosted by the centers wouldaddress issues that range from local to internationaldecision making. Scientists, policy makers, naturalresource managers, or corporations could feel freeto propose projects. The projects would share oneprovision: each must involve true collaboration andbalanced representation among the users andproducers of ecological knowledge.

The centers would provide a “level playing field”that encourages high-quality, two-way exchangeof information between decision makers andscientists. Two-way exchange is critical, becausethe goal is to improve integration of the very bestecological knowledge into policy and managementand to inform the direction of ecological researchto address societal needs. In addition, because somany issues of ecological sustainability areinherently interdisciplinary, the centers also wouldprovide a venue in which ecologists couldcollaborate with economists, engineers,hydrologists, and scientists from many otherdisciplines in solving shared problems.

The projects hosted by the centers would producea rich set of “experiments” in linking ecologicalscience to sustainability policy and practice. Thispresents an enormous opportunity to learn the bestway to create such linkages. An assessment activitywould be part of all projects hosted by a center. Itwould analyze methods for encouraging groupinteractions and communication and would evaluatethe projects’ impacts on ecological sustainability.What researchers learn from these assessmentswould be documented in a body of scholarlyliterature on the institutional arrangements andprocesses that work best in joining ecologicalscience to its applications (e.g., Bennett et al. 2003,Cash et al. 2003, Castillo 2000).

The centers would function with a small permanentstaff and facility to support projects, to conductproject assessment activities, and to ensurecontinuity across projects in selected areas ofspecial interest. For example, over a given

12

period of time, a center might host a set ofprojects on specific issues such as forestmanagement, sustainable agriculture, or wetlandsrestoration. Ongoing participation by adedicated staff member at a center would ensurethat insights could be gleaned from comparisonsacross projects.

Functions anticipated for the centers include:• Convening working groups, symposia, and

analytical projects that will improve theintegration of ecological knowledge into real-world policy or management issues atinternational, national, regional, or localscales.

• Convening projects specifically to evaluatethe implications of new discoveries orconceptual advances in the ecologicalsciences for policy or management issues.These projects would communicate resultsmore broadly across potential usercommunities, and thus reach a wideraudience.

• Developing a special focus on effectivelyintegrating ecological knowledge into land-use planning decisions made at the countylevel. Those decisions have profound effectson the environment and its sustainability, butthis important area is particularly poorlyaddressed at present.

ID Action 2. Build on programs that serveas “honest brokers” of information and userapid response teams to assist decisionmakers. The ESA could initiate partnerships todevelop a program, based in Washington, DC,that would draw on expertise from the field ofecology to score legislative and executive branchproposals for their impact on ecologicalsustainability, and to identify experts who wouldexpeditiously provide input and testimony onpending legislation or regulations. If successful,this venture would result, over time, in legislativeand policy proposals that are better informedby ecological knowledge and an increased

involvement by ecological scientists in legislativeand policy processes.

The work will require a skilled and scientificallyliterate staff of science policy analysts who havepermanent networking relationships with decisionmakers in Washington. These analysts alsowould be well-connected to the membership ofthe ESA and other societies in order to identifyappropriate experts as needs arise. The staffwould also work with experts to ensure they areeffective in communicating their scientificknowledge through testimony, in writing, andother public participation opportunities. Theirwork would include:

• Developing and implementing anInformed by Ecological Knowledge(IEK) scoring system. The results wouldfunction as independent and objectivereport cards for pending legislation. Theintent would be to assess and emphasizethe quality of ecological scienceunderpinning the legislation. Theyexplicitly would not take advocacypositions.

• Serving as the contact point and sourcefor scientifically credible and trustedadvisors drawn from the membership ofthe ESA and other professional societies.Decision makers in Washington wouldknow they could call on the team torapidly provide high-quality,independent, and—above all—objective ecological input and testimonyfor emerging legislative, policy, andmanagement issues. (In this sense, theteam would function similarly to the USCongressional Research Service or thenow-closed Office of TechnologyAssessment, and would act as a rapidresponse team that provides input ontime-sensitive issues).

This program could serve as model for similarprograms in major cities worldwide.

13

ID Action 3. Increase the number ofecologists within government agencies whomake decisions or influence the decisionsof others related to ecologicalsustainabi l i ty. Individuals with strongbackgrounds in ecological science will ensure thatpolicy and management decisions are informedby the best available ecological knowledge; or,when the best available ecological knowledge isnot sufficient, these individuals will be positionedto push to obtain it—to argue for targetedresearch or adaptive management approachesor both. Ecologists employed in positions thatrequire frequent interaction with the public willhave opportunities to educate the public on issuesof ecological sustainability. Ultimately this shouldoccur on a worldwide basis. To begin to increasethe employment rate of ecologists in agenciesand the legislative branch in the US, the ESAcould undertake the following:

• Develop a postdoctoral program, suchas the AAAS Science, Technology andPolicy Fellows, and the National SeaGrant or John A. Knauss Marine PolicyFellowships, designed specifically toplace promising early-career ecologistson Congressional staffs and in federalagencies.

• Collaborate with workforce planners infederal and state agencies in buildingecological capacity and knowledge.Particularly important places for capacitybuilding include agency functions thatinteract with the public (e.g., NRC’s fieldservice representatives, Bureau of LandManagement agents, county agriculturalextension agents) and that conductresearch that should, but presently doesnot, often have an ecological component.Possible approaches include persuadingmanagers of the importance of ecologicalknowledge within agency missionstatements and helping agencies developpostion descriptions and advertiseopenings across the ESA membership.

14

Area B: Foster a thoughtful public today andeducate generations of tomorrow so that thebest ecological knowledge informs individualchoices about sustainability.

In the near term, accomplishing this goal will requirea full-scale public information effort. The campaignwould seek to increase awareness about ecologicalsustainability and explain the sustainability issuesaffecting the quality of people’s lives and those offuture generations. There is no question that thepublic is aware of threats to sustainability, especiallywhen “sustainability” is related to the well-being ofthe public’s children and grandchildren. But thereis ample evidence of public uncertainty—perhapsfuelled by the “environmentalists versus developers”tone of much of the discussion—over howsustainability might best be achieved. Through thisinformation campaign, members of the public willbecome more aware of ways in which theirdecisions and actions make a difference, and theywill better understand the science that should informtheir choices. They also will learn that concernsabout sustainability include much more than thecharismatic “mega-issues” such as climate changeand species extinction.

Over the longer term, a full-scale public educationprogram will be essential to ensure lasting changesin the public’s understanding of the link betweenecology and sustainability. The next fifty years willbe a period of great change in ecosystemsworldwide, and future generations must beprepared to make sound and scientifically informedchoices that influence the environment at all levels—local, landscape, regional, and global. Educationwill be critical if future generations are to have thenecessary knowledge, attitudes, and skills to doso (Castillo et al. 2002, Jenkins 2003). There isconsiderable evidence that the public, especiallyyounger persons, will welcome such education.

Ensuring that ecology education provides afoundation for informed decision making will requireimproved literacy about ecological sustainability

among teachers and integration of ecologicalsustainability into the standards and curriculamandated by countries, states, and provinces(Berkowitz 1997, NCSE 2003, Slingsby andBarker 1998). Busy educators at all levelsalso need increased access to ecologicalknowledge in useful formats, as well as to thelatest advances in ecology education theoryand practice.

Recommended actions:

ID Action 4. Develop a major publicinformation campaign to bring issues ofecological sus ta inabi l i ty before thegeneral public. The campaign will be ofsufficient scope and breadth that it willsignificantly raise awareness about ecologicalsustainability among most segments of society.Additional targeted campaigns will seek toincrease understanding among attentive andinfluential segments of society.

The ESA, in collaboration with funding andother partners, can help create a campaignthat delivers a science-based perspective onecological sustainability and that avoidsadvocacy of specific policy positions. Partsof the campaign could be structured arounda set of high profile issues of broad publicconcern and help audiences understand thescientific basis for solving problems ofecological sustainability. Other groups havealready begun education campaigns, and ESAshould not reinvent the wheel—ESA shouldpartner with such groups, help leverageresources, and bring the membership of thesegroups into the process.

Broad-scale dissemination of information tothe public demands a quantum leap pastconventional print, broadcast, and Web-based media. National awareness of whatecological sustainability is and how eachcitizen is connected to his or her ecosystem

will require a coordinated and prolongedcampaign of Internet, television, radio, andprint media—one on the scale of the USantismoking campaign.

For example, the ESA, working with otherpartners, could hire professionals in massmedia communications to design andimplement the campaign. Strategies couldinclude public service announcements inradio, network TV ads, and posters onbillboards and in public transport systems(“This is an ecosystem” [a series of postersdepicting a variety of systems, from drops ofrainwater to satellite images of the Amazonbasin]; “Have you seen your ecosystemlately?”), and more comprehensive materialsfor those who would like to learn more.Specialized campaigns should also targetgroups that have the ability to effect significantchanges in public policy or industry—forexample, members of Congress, nationalindustry associations, and environmentallobbyists and similar audiences in statecapitals.

ID Action 5. Work with diverse public,nonprofit, and religious organizations tobetter integrate ecological knowledgeinto their relevant outreach and publiceducation campaigns. Many religiousgroups have responded to emergingenvironmental concerns by linking values toan ethos of environmental stewardship. TheESA can encourage the integration ofcontemporary and rigorous ecologicalknowledge into this movement by providingspeakers on ecological issues of local andnational significance and developingappropriate information products. Forexample, the ESA could prepare targetedinformation packages by working with multi-faith organizations and scholars that areaddressing the link between ecologicalsustainability and religion, such as the National

15

ID Action 6. Establish internationally-coordinated ecology education programs. Thegoal of these programs is to ensure that systemicchanges occur in ecology education to makebetter and more effective use of concepts anddiscoveries in sustainability science. Theprograms could be modeled after the NationalAcademy of Engineering’s Center for theAdvancement of Scholarship on EngineeringEducation (CASEE) (NAE 2002). The ESAwould need to work with other ecology andeducation professional societies, educationresearch institutions, and funding partners toestablish local, national, and internationalprograms.

16

Advances in ecology education research will alsobe essential to enable this systemic change.There must be better connections betweenecologists and educators through educationresearch, teacher education, science educationpolicy development, and professionaldevelopment. Relatively little support exists forany of these activities today, specifically forecology education. Innovative programs couldremedy this gap by connecting ecologicalknowledge with the best information from educationresearch to advance K-12, undergraduate, andnon-formal education (D’Avanzo 2003, Keys andBryan 2001, Walczyk and Ramsey 2003).Programs must provide ecologists with access tobest practices in teaching and learning, advancesin educational research, and expertise from theeducation sector to help develop curriculum-basedand developmentally-appropriate education oroutreach programs (e.g., McKeown 2003).

ESA-related actions anticipated for educationprograms include the following:

ID 6a. Develop and deliver professionaldevelopment programs for K-12 educatorsrelated to ecological sustainability. This mightinclude an annual international EcologyEducation meeting1, bringing together ahundred leading science education specialistsand ecologists. Each meeting could focus ondeveloping ecological sustainability educationprograms and curricula of state, provincial, ornational significance. The meetings also mightpromote ecologist-educator partnershipprograms such as SYEFEST (SchoolyardEcology for Elementary School Teachers) atall levels of K-12 education.

ID 6b. Expand the TIEE (Teaching Issues andExperiments in Ecology 2004) FIRST (FacultyInstitutes Reforming Science Teaching 2004),or similar undergraduate faculty support andenhancement programs for ecologyeducation—with a special focus on ecologicalsustainability. Appropriate education research

Religious Partnership for the Environment(http://www.nrpe.org/mission.html), and theHarvard University Center for the Study ofWorld Religions (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr).

Numerous other government and privateorganizations are delivering messages to thepublic that directly or indirectly addressecological sustainability. Some alreadysupport the dissemination of peer-reviewedscience (e.g., US federal and state agencies).These and many other organizations, includingenvironmental and sustainability NGOs, wouldbenefit from broader involvement of ecologistsin helping to build scientifically accuratemessages; however, they may not be aware ofthe enormous resources the 8,000 members ofthe ESA represent. The ESA could facilitate theinvolvement of ecologists by building workingrelationships between the ESA Governing Boardand such organizations (through memoranda ofunderstanding, for example) and then“matchmaking” between each organization’sneeds and expertise from across the ESA. Thematchmaking could take place either actively ona case-by-case basis or by creating a Web-based resource built upon the existing EcologicalInformation Network (EIN 2004).

1 The meetings could be modeled after the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Leadership Program for Teachers.

I

17

could be assisted by partnerships between theESA and major education professional societiesor education research centers to assess anddisseminate information about such capacitybuilding programs.

ID 6c. Analyze and participate in curriculumstandards and textbook development for ecologyin K-12 and undergraduate education.Government mandated national, state, andprovincial standards, or programs of study,undergo review every five to ten years, and thereviews frequently attract partisans of variouscauses (the evolution-creationism debate is aprominent example). These reviews provideopportunities for scientists to make the case for,and explain the facts of, ecological sustainability(Blank and Brewer 2003). The ESA EducationOffice staff could track changes and opportunitiesfor ecologists to participate in education policyreform.

ID 6d. Increase diversity among ecologyeducators nationally and internationally. Educatorsare usually the closest that most K-12 studentscome to working with anyone having scientificknowledge (Slingsby 2001). We need accessiblerole models to meet the needs of diverse studentpopulations at the primary, secondary, andundergraduate education levels. The ESA couldexpand and apply the highly successful SEEDSprogram to recruit minority ecologyundergraduate and graduate students to pursuecareers in K-12 education—particularly in thearea of ecological sustainability.

ID 6e. Establish a Web-based e-library thatprovides up-to-date access to advances inresearch and education on ecologicalsustainability. The library would be available toeducators, curriculum developers, and the public,both within the US and internationally. The ERICDigests provides a potential model for presenting

best-practices and education research summariesfor use by educators at all levels.

ID Action 7. Work with the United Nations todeclare an “International Decade of EcologyEducation” as part of the Decade of Educationfor Sustainable Development (2005-2015).International ecology education reform will requireinternational actions. Such a declaration will raiseawareness in the US and beyond about the significanceof ecological knowledge in enabling sustainableecosystems. It also is likely to result in policyoutcomes, such as declarations that addressgovernment incorporation of ecological knowledgeinto decision making, education, and literacy. Actionsto accompany this declaration could include thefollowing:

ID 7a. Organize and implement a series ofEcology Education Conferences, bringingtogether professional science and educationsocieties to identify advances, gaps, and frontiersin education related to ecological sustainability.The scope and sequence for the series couldinclude: an all-society Ecology Educationsymposium at the 2005 ESA/InternationalAssociation for Ecology (INTECOL) meeting,a 2010 National Ecology Education Conferencefor science and education professional societies,and a 2015 International Ecology EducationConference.

ID 7b. Publish and widely disseminateproceedings from the education conferences. Onlyfour major books have been published byprofessional ecological societies, institutes, orecologists since 1966 that directly address thestatus of ecology education in undergraduateeducation (Lambert 1966), environmentaleducation (Bakshi and Naveh 1980, Hale 1993),and urban ecosystems (Berkowitz et al. 2003).The proceedings would promote scholarship inecology education and provide educators at alllevels with periodic syntheses of advances ineducation practice.

18

Summary - Informing Decisions

The most important thing we can do to moveecology toward assuming the critical role it mustplay in addressing our current and futureenvironmental challenges is to get the rightinformation into the right hands at the right timeand in the right form. It is also one of our mostdifficult tasks. But it needs to be done ifecological science is to make its badly-neededcontribution to sustainability. For this to happen,we must take the responsibility to ensure thatour science is relevant and that it is used in alllevels of decision making. The strategy wepropose will promote a foundation for progressthat will move ecology beyond the marginal roleit currently plays to full partnership in decisionsregarding ecological sustainability.

In our vision of the future, ecological knowledgeis a standard and necessary factor in decisionmaking in all aspects of society. If we are

successful, ecological scientists will be calledupon to assist in policy decisions at the local,national and global levels. Industry will seeecological science as a friend, rather thanopponent—and as a key ingredient in makingeconomically and socially good businessdecisions. Natural resource managers andresearch scientists will work together to developmore informative and useful research programs.We will see the fruits of ecological education ina global human population that betterunderstands our dependence on ecologicalservices and that respects and appreciatesbiological diversity. We believe this vision isobtainable, but this future depends on the actionswe take now. The vast array of existinginformation, important advances in research,technological innovations, and exciting newcollaborations that are called for in other parts ofthis report will provide ammunition but will not moveus forward unless we have the structure in place totake us from data, to outreach, to application.

VISION 2:

ADVANCE INNOVATIVE AND ANTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Vision Statement: Broadly innovative and effective ecological research in the 21st Century willrequire proactive research in which ecologists anticipate problems and needs, develop creative andsometimes high-risk ideas, employ novel methods, and are willing to work at unprecedented scalesand levels of coordination. Within this decade, steps must be taken to develop, implement, synthesize,and apply new conceptual approaches, analytical methods, and technological tools. The aim here isto quantify, explain, and predict ecological phenomena critical to the sustainability of the biosphere.

Rationale

Ecological research questions extend across aspectrum that ranges from increasingly rich andsophisticated molecular-level analyses of both livingand nonliving components of the world’secosystems to integrated views of the entire globe(e.g., Thompson et al. 2001). The enterprise ofecological research already spans Earth and isreaching into our solar system. It ranges from remoteoutposts on land and sea, to the familiar patchworklandscape of more developed areas, to the heartof our most populated cities. Despite this,ecological understanding still often lags behind thescale and rapid pace of changes that occur on theplanet (Vitousek 1994, Lubchenco 1998, NRC2001). The extent of human-induced environmentalchange is making the science of ecology increasinglycritical to the future of life on Earth (Lubchenco1998, NRC 1999, 2001, NEON 2000, NSF2000, NSF-ERE 2003). We must anticipate thescientific needs, not simply react to and report onthem.

For ecology to meet the challenges of the future,we must develop anticipatory and novelconceptual, analytical, and interdisciplinaryframeworks. Progress in understanding

ecosystems—how they function, how they relateto one another, and how they can be restored orcreated to provide essential services—requires thedevelopment of new, imaginative tools andimproved accessibility and ease of use oftechnologies. Comprehensive ecologicalunderstanding demands integration and synthesisof multiple sources of information. Widelyaccessible, integrated devices to captureinformation in ecology and allied disciplines areneeded, even those whose links to ecologicalsustainability are not immediately apparent. Theinterdisciplinary nature of the research we needmeans that new models of collaboration must bebuilt both at the national and international levels.

The research we undertake must be ultimatelymotivated by the need to build a betterunderstanding of how ecosystem services areprovided and can be sustained. Basic researchis critical; solution-driven research is itspartner. To accomplish this will require not justhighly innovative thinking that anticipatesfuture needs and problems; it also will requiresignificant changes in the way ecologicalinformation is collected, synthesized, andcommunicated, and it requires new researchtools, approaches and infrastructure .

19

Area A. Build the intellectual and technicalinfrastructure for ecology.

Ecological understanding rests on knowledge thatis gained from multiple avenues, includingexperimentation, theory and modeling, comparativeobservations, long-term study, and synthesis(Carpenter 1998). The environmental researchcommunity has generally responded to problemsthat are here and now (e.g., biodiversity loss, thespread of nonnative species, the initial signs ofglobal climate change). We also need a focus onthe future, even though by definition the future islargely unknown. We need a new body ofknowledge, radically new research agendas, andnew ways of ensuring that ecology is a componentof the important decisions facing society in thefuture. We need additional funding resources tosupport research, but we also must fosterintellectual and interpersonal support within ourdiscipline for experimenting with new conceptualframeworks and for developing new analyticalmethods.

New frameworks mean envisioning the knowledgeand research that we need to realize a future worldin which socio-ecological systems are sustainable.Forward-looking, anticipatory research goesbeyond what we know is technically feasible nowto what could be feasible if we only knew or hadsome piece of information, a new tool, or someanalytical solution (Box 4). The intellectual

Action Areas for Advancing Innovative and Anticipatory Research (AR)

A. Enhance the intellectual and technical infrastructure for ecology.

B. Create new incentives to recognize and encourage anticipatory and innovative research.

C. Promote the standardization of data collection, data documentation, and data sharing.

infrastructure we need to accomplish anticipatoryresearch is not just idea-driven but also includes asuite of widely available tools for the seamlessintegration of data, theory, concepts, and models.In some cases, this framework (e.g., software,algorithms) is reasonably well–developed, yetprogress in collecting and evaluating new data islimited by technical or financial barriers. Forexample, the quantitative approaches to design andinterpretation of results from studies of variance inboth space and time simply do not exist, yet suchvariance can be a major factor in determining keyecological responses (Rusack et al. 2002, Burrowset al. 2002, Fraterrigo et al. in review).

Experimental tests of new ideas will in many casesrequire replicating large-scale manipulativeexperiments. Efficient computational algorithms willbe needed to store, analyze, and view the volumesof data that may be generated. Interdisciplinaryframeworks that incorporate such complicatedinteractions as multivariate causality, nonlinearfeedback, and individual-based decision makingare sure to be at the leading edge of future researchthat explicitly incorporates humans in the system.Thus, we will need the infrastructure (e.g., NEON,LTER, ocean observatories) to conduct large-scaleexperiments, but we also will need significantincreases in training, collaborations, andinfrastructure to assist in the rapid and thoroughdevelopment of a theoretical and analyticalframework—one that can optimize subsequent

20

Advancements in research technology, notably thedevelopment of automated sensor systems for insitu and remote measurement of ecologicalphenomena, should become fundamental to futureecological science. In some areas, such as remotesensing, scientists are making good use now oftechnologies that address the complex scales ofmodern ecology, and ecologists have also helpeddrive the research and development of new tools.After the first satellites were launched for weatherprediction in 1960 (Hastings and Emery 1992),scientists, including ecologists, eagerly began usingthem to gather ecologically relevant informationabout the surface of the Earth, from landscapestructure to fluxes of key elements (e.g., Botkin etal. 1984, NRC 1986, NASA-EOS 2003). Almostmagically, we were able to view and assess ourplanet from a totally new perspective—and,furthermore, to measure its change over time.

Nonetheless, we still do not see Earth with theclarity and resolution we need. Similarly, ourresolution of the ecosystems below land and watersurfaces, and our ability to collect species andgenetic data at the necessary spatial and temporalscales, still fall well short of the detail we need toanswer many key ecological questions (e.g., Souléand Orians 2001). Furthermore, we have yet torealize the full potential for applications of newmolecular techniques to ecological research. As thenew techniques have become available, ourappetite has grown for even more sophisticatedtools.

New technologies, such as satellite platforms,increased computing power, and robust GPS-based tracking devices, to name just a few, canhelp overcome barriers to progress. Astronomerscould not unravel mysteries of our solar systemwithout high-powered telescopes; physicists couldnot see the structure of an atom without massive

accelerators. Ecology needs similar technologiesto allow it to face similar grand challenges (NRC2001), but ones that do not resolve so easily intosingle flagship instruments. Instead, understandingthe extraordinary complexity of life on Earthrequires a diverse portfolio of tools and approaches.Designing and implementing such a portfolio willbe essential to the success of ecology in helpingthe human enterprise arrive at a more sustainablefuture.


AR Action 1. Fully scope and then promotethe four-pronged Ecological Research forSustainability Initiative. The initiativerequires close coordination among two novelprograms, an existing center (The NationalCenter for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis[NCEAS]) and a new center. The goal of theinitiative is to facilitate: i) research projectdevelopment, ii) large-scale experiments anddata collection, iii) synthesis, and iv) thelinkage of science to solutions. To successfullymanage, restore, and create sustainableecosystems, we need new ways of thinking, alongwith the ability to generate and test bold ideaswithout being hampered by institutionalarrangements that limit access to information andpeople. Ecology is vastly complex; no individualor single group of ecologists can acquire optimalexpertise in the wide range of disciplines that areencompassed by an ecological science for acrowded planet. Researchers must be able to easilyobtain the intellectual and technological tools theyneed to answer a question without becomingexperts in multiple fields. Funds must be availablefor individuals and groups during the “maturationphase” of their research idea. There are a fewfederally supported grant programs for ideadevelopment (e.g., NSF incubation grants). Manymore are needed.

Thus, we recommend establishment of newprograms and one new center that build from and

21

efforts in data collection and synthesis (Clark et al.2001, Hastings and Palmer 2003, Palmer et al.2003).

Box 4Anticipatory Research

Until now, much of ecological science has been based on reaction. We want to know why climateis changing; why species are going extinct; what happens when exotic species invade an ecosystem.To keep pace with today’s explosion in environmental discoveries and threats, we also need toengage in anticipatory research—to use novel ideas, powerful data acquisition and managementtools, and new technology that is developed to prepare for, and perhaps build defenses, againstwhat is coming next.

Case study: Understanding exchanges between large rivers and their floodplainsRiver-floodplain ecosystems are among the most dynamic, spatially complex, and biologically richhabitats on Earth and a main intersection between environment and society. Their high diversity andproductivity result from their position at the terrestrial-aquatic interface and from interactions betweenphysical and biotic processes. Terrestrial and aquatic areas are alternately connected and disconnectedas waters inundate and recede from the floodplain, producing a shifting river- and -landscape ofhabitats that change dramatically in size, duration and arrangement 1. This variable mosaic of land-and water-based components is a unique property of river-floodplain systems that profoundly affectsboth the direction and magnitude of critical biotic fluxes, such as organic matter transport anddeposition2. This movement of organic matter is extremely important to the provision of ecosystemservices such as clean water and riparian vegetation suitable for wildlife and recreation. However,little is known about how organic matter is actually exchanged between a river and its floodplainbecause the interaction between flow and complex features of the habitat make it difficult to measurethis exchange.

To ensure adequate water for human consumption and to support natural systems, we need to be ableto answer questions such as: Under what conditions and at what scales is the floodplain a source oforganic matter to the river, and under what conditions and scales does the floodplain store suchmatter? Are there thresholds in physical processes, habitat connectivity, or biotic community compositionthat cause the system to change state, such that the floodplain releases rather than stores carbon?Answering these questions is critical to our abilities to preserve and restore ecosystem services alongrivers.

Recently, water researchers have called for new integrative conceptual frameworks and criticalempirical data3. To develop these frameworks and gather the necessary data will require: a distributedarray of in situ sensors that can record key functional variables (e.g., rates of denitrification) remotelyand at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, perhaps in multiple rivers; event-based remote sensingof the extent and depth of flooding and recession; spatially explicit models that link surface andground water flows in a landscape that is complex in topography and vegetative communities; analyticalmethods that incorporate nonlinear dynamics and complex feedbacks; and experimental floods ofvarying magnitude.

1 Ward et al. 1999; Malard et al. 1999; Tockner et al. 2000

2 Bayley 1989, Junk et al. 1989, Bayley 1995

3 Gurnell et al. 2000, Wiens 2002, Ward et al. 2002, Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) 2004

22

infrastructure (Box 5). Individually, the initiative’scomponents would greatly enhance researchcapability by providing both virtual and place-basedresources and facilities. With tightly-linkedcomponents, the four-part initiative wouldprovide a powerful integrated system tostimulate the sophisticated, collaborative, andinnovative approaches necessary to designand conduct new research, analyzemultifaceted data, and interpret complexecological information to the public. We arenot suggesting that the specific research to be doneshould be dictated by a committee. Rather, theinitiative would provide information, tools, andservices to individuals or user groups that mayenhance design, implementation, and synthesis ofresearch. Furthermore, the resources from theseprograms and centers would be open to all users,regardless of the nature and scope of their projects,

and would be easily available to them, both on-line (virtual) and in their physical settings.

As a whole, the initiative would facilitate: 1) thedevelopment of complex research projects thatdirectly address issues of sustainability or enhancethe basic ecological science that must underliesustainability science; 2) the ability to conduct largescale projects or gather unique data; 3) researchsynthesis; and 4) the implementation of the researchthat leads to policy and/or management solutions.We expect that one of the major benefits of thissuite of programs and centers would come fromchanges in the ways ecologists and professionalsfrom many disciplines interact productively.

This array of intellectual and technical infrastructurewould build upon a successful existing center(NCEAS) and the proposed (NEON) (NRC2003) to create a resource that collectively provides

23

Schematic of the four components of the Ecological Research for Sustainability Initiative. Where appropriate, a research project could benefit from all four components or could enter or leave the sequence at any point, depending on needs. This structure creates a highly flexible set of resources for the full spectrum of ecological and implementation research needs.

PIER

Programs for Integrative Ecological Research • advances idea development • provides expertise • enhances tool development

NCEAS

ERIN

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis • existing center with enhanced international focus

Ecological Research Infrastructure Network • existing or already proposed programs for infrastructure support and networked experiments

Center(s) for the Ecological Implementation of Solutions • enhances linkages among managers, policy-makers and researchers

CEIS

Box 5

add to existing and planned resources and

The initiative to advance Ecological Researchfor Sustainability would involve thoughtfulcoordination of a set of new programs, a newcenter, and an existing center to:

Enhance access to the latest and bestexpertise and tools—PIER (Programs forIntegrative Ecological Research). Ecologistshave a proud history of designing their own tools,whether they are computer programs, statisticalpackages, or equipment for collecting data—everything from cameras that record nocturnalvisits by shy wild animals to adaptations of plasticplumbing fixtures that catch nematodes as theytravel through the soil. But as research becomesincreasingly complex, ecological science needsthe latest, most applicable expertise, facilities,and technology. Presently, such services areeither not available or are being met only on anindividual basis. The program should be able tooffer small grants for idea development that isforward-looking—that is, “anticipatory”research.

Further, this initiative would play a pivotal rolein forging research collaborations (“expertisematch-making”) and would be a clearinghousefor the latest information on technology andmethods relevant to ecological science.

The present lack of such a clearinghouse whereinformation and guidance can be obtained isseriously hampering research progress. Manyindividual scientists have been able to overcomethis hurdle, but doing so requires a great deal of

time and effort, and will demand even more asresearchers probe ever deeper into thecomplexities of ecological sustainability. A farmore efficient arrangement would be for theinformation center to be operated by experts whocan keep up with ever-changing technology andinformation.

This program would have the specific missionof assisting in the creation of novel ideas andaccessing the most applicable, up-to-dateexpertise, facilities, and technology. We canaccomplish this through staff experience in suchareas as information management, analytical/modeling/statistical tools, and technology;creation of opportunities for multidisciplinarycollaborations to form and to develop thecapacity to conduct comprehensive ecologicalresearch; and serving as a Web-basedclearinghouse for the latest information ontechnology, tools, and methods relevant toecological science.

An explicit goal of the program would be toencourage ecologists to undertake ambitious,comprehensive studies that remain investigator-driven and are likely to yield substantial gains inecological understanding.

Support existing initiatives that addressecological challenges—ERIN and NCEAS.ERIN (the proposed Ecological ResearchInfrastructure Network) would forge aninternational network of regional observatories—with field sites, intensive sensor networks,analytical laboratories, and experimentalmanipulations—to address key ecologicalchallenges. Layered across this regional systemwould be an international network ofexperiments and monitoring infrastructuredesigned to address the ecological challenges thatare fundamental to our goal of moving towardsustainability. We could form the network almostimmediately by linking together and adding toexisting and proposed research networks (e.g.,

the building blocks needed for a proactive andresponsive future ecology. Furthermore, in aneffort to maximize and integrate similar efforts,this initiative would promote collaborations withother such entities (e.g., Consortium ofUniversities for the Advancement of HydrologicScience Inc. [CUAHSI]; Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network forEnvironmental Research [CLEANER]).

24

NEON, LTER, OBFS, CUAHSI, CLEANER)and enhancing their research infrastructure,capabilities, and coordination.

The National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis (NCEAS) already exists in the UnitedStates (UC-Santa Barbara) and successfullyapplies a collaborative and integrative approachto the advancement of ecological understanding asa supporter of synthetic research, development ofnovel modeling, simulation, and other analyticalmethods, and technical training. We envision anexpanded role internationally and Web-basedmethods so that it would be an informationclearinghouse for synthetic approaches. Westrongly endorse continuation of NCEAS, and wesupport efforts by federal agencies to ensure thecoordination of the existing networks.

Another initiative, the Centers for the EcologicalImplementation of Solutions (CEIS) wasdescribed earlier in ID Action 1. We view centerssuch as these as absolutely essential to ensure thatmanagers and policy makers work much moreclosely with researchers.

Overall, the Ecological Research for SustainabilityInitiative is large in scope but vitally important ifwe are to move ecological research toward a futurein which it effectively informs decisions at regional,national, and international scales. Each of the fourcomponents would develop programmatic areasrelated to its own mission. Some functions wouldbe fulfilled as a virtual facility, while other elementsof function would take place on-site. As a whole,this assembly would serve as a large, virtual instituteand as a portal to a broad range of informationand services that will be essential to past and futureecological knowledge and its application.

To more fully develop details and responsibilitiesof the Ecological Research for SustainabilityInitiative components and the opportunities theycan provide, ESA, with the help of itsmembership, should secure support to work with

Area B. Create new incentives to recognizeand encourage anticipatory and innovativeresearch.

Ecologists must begin to look inward at ways inwhich their own institutional and personal culturemay help or hinder a broad, maximally innovativeapproach to advancing ecological understanding.For example, ecologists need to become willing tocoordinate their efforts in unprecedented ways: toconstruct and obtain large-scale, high-resolutiondatasets needed to address many current challengesin ecology. They also need to reach out to fundingagencies with a clear, unified voice in ways thathave been successful for other disciplines, and thatcould drive funding changes that will allowecological science to address large, complexquestions. These changes will require incentives aswell as training for ecologists in the managerialhurdles encountered at this large scale.

Ecology must not only recognize, but also reward,the contributions made by innovations intechnology, synthesis, informatics, and quantitativeapproaches. Degrees in physics, chemistry, andengineering are frequently earned based on thecreation of new methods or instruments. Thispipeline of innovation provides a steady supply ofnew tools that become broadly useful across thediscipline. In contrast, it is a rare student in ecologywho earns a degree in this fashion, despite thesubstantial impact it might have on the field.

Students are also typically not encouraged topursue degrees that are largely based on synthesisof existing information, yet such synthesis is an

25

the ecological community to gatherinformation, analyze options, and makerecommendations regarding the components’characteristics. While NSF and other agenciesmight support these workshops and some portionof the institutes themselves, specific efforts shouldbe made to engage other public and private entitiesthat might be interested in this approach.

absolutely essential and growing branch ofecological science (NSF-ERE 2003). Currenttraining does not prepare young scientists andtechnicians in ecology to utilize ecoinformatics tools.Furthermore, modern ecology increasingly relieson a substantial level of quantitative and computerliteracy; thus students in ecology should haverigorous quantitative training as a core part of theirgraduate programs. Continuing technical educationfor ecologists at all career stages is particularlyimportant, given the pace at which availabletechnologies are changing.

Incentives and recognition are powerful motivatorsin science, and ecology is no exception. We identifyhere several key incentives that would producesignificant strides toward motivating and recognizingthe major scientific developments needed for theecology of the 21st Century.


AR Action 2. Seek a Nobel or EquivalentPrize in Ecology. While there are some prominentinternational awards open to ecological scientists(e.g., the Blue Planet Prize), there is no award ofcomparable prestige to the Nobel Prize for ourdiscipline. There are international awards forenvironmental stewardship, but no high-visibilityawards targeting the ecological sciences are givenfrom within our disciplinary communities. This issomewhat astonishing, given the importance of thescience of ecology for the global environment. ANobel or prize of equal prestige in ecology wouldbe a highly visible and effective way to recognizeboth the contributions made by the discipline andthose made by individual scientists. The impact ofsuch an award could be enormous.

Establishment of a new Nobel Prize would be nosmall task. The most recent Nobel Prize wasestablished in 1967 for economics with a largedonation from the Bank of Sweden. Thus, a newNobel Prize or similar award would undoubtedlyrequire both substantial endowment funds and

collaboration with other countries. Nonetheless,success in this venture would guarantee a quantumleap in the visibility of ecological science to theworld. The ESA could initiate and participate in aprocess of exploration of this idea by establishinga committee of influential and respected ecologicalscientists and leaders from outside the discipline tolook at the feasibility of a Nobel Prize or equallyauthoritative new award in ecology.

AR Action 3. Establish an annual award forthe best new instrument or new technology.Ecologists have shown remarkable innovation inborrowing technologies from other arenas. But forthe most part the discipline has not exerted acoordinated and direct influence on both privateand academic engineering sectors in ways thatproduce technologies designed specifically toaddress ecological questions. Active outreach tothese sectors—including annual awards for the bestnew instrument—is essential. The growing need forecological information with relevance toenvironmental problems means that profitablemarkets for such instruments exist. We envision anaward given annually by the ESA for the best newinstrument or new technology that will lead to asignificant increase in ecological understanding.

AR Action 4. Establish an internationalcontest among collaborative groups to solvean annual ecological challenge. We envisionan “Eco Challenge” along the lines of problem-solving competitions that are conducted inmathematics and engineering. For example, anecological challenge could be given at the ESA’sAnnual Meeting, and collaborative groups, perhapswith an emphasis on graduate students, would workto develop solutions. These challenges mightrequire the development of new technologies,analytical approaches, models, and/or experimentaldesigns, and solutions would be evaluated by areview team. At the following year’s ESA meeting,all solutions would be displayed to highlight thediversity and creativity of alternative solutions. Anaward would be given for the best solution. The

26

Environmental Protection Agency recentlyannounced a “design competition forsustainability” that is open to students. Weapplaud such efforts.

AR Action 5. Create a prestigious journalon methods development . Theestablishment of a prestigious new journalboth recognizes and encourages research ina particular area. A journal devoted toresearch innovations in ecology would be away of showcasing important new methodswhile providing a high-profile outlet for suchwork. Alternatively, a new section could beadded to existing ESA journals in whichdevelopments in research technology arepublished.

Area C. Promote the standardization ofdata collection, data documentation, anddata sharing.

Ecological analyses, and managementdecisions that rely on them, commonly employhighly diverse data. Unfortunately, much ofthis information has been accumulated andstored in haphazard and inaccessible formsin the nooks and crannies of research. Thismay not have been recognized as a bigproblem before the arrival of the digital age,but now it seems an archaic barrier toprogress. Even when made available,environmental data are often highly distributedand profoundly heterogeneous, and few toolsexist that can acquire and characterize dataand models, and then make them widelyaccessible in a convenient, integrated way.These barriers to data access limit progressin environmental science, and greatly limitdata use by resource managers, economists,political analysts, and other decision makers.

Much of the information that already has beengathered is no longer in useful formats, evenfor those who collected it. Progress in

environmental science may most be limitednow not by our lack of information, but bythe fact that vast amounts of existing data aresimply not accessible.

A revolution in information technology that willease the generation of ecological knowledgeis occurring in response to a growing need todocument, store, retrieve, manipulate,analyze, and display data (Estrin et al. 2003).Information technology research is yieldingmechanisms for ecologists to document theirdata using standardized protocols, and storetheir data in carefully managed, widelyaccessible archives. These data can then feedinto the conceptual frameworks and analyticaltools described above. Thus, ecology couldgreatly profit from the development oftechnological means, cultural inducements,and training opportunities to effectivelyrepresent ecological knowledge. This can bedone via a suite of widely available tools forthe seamless integration of data, theory,concepts, and models.

To implement this vision, we proposeincreased effort in technology developmentand training in ecoinformatics and EcologicalCyberInfrastructure (ECI) (Box 6). ECIprovides the link between people and thedata, hardware, software, and other tools forcreating and displaying ecological knowledge.Advancements in ECI require thedevelopment of generic tools for data input,access, and analysis. Ecological data shouldbe digitally captured early in the acquisitionprocess, while concurrently generatingmetadata (information about the data itself).Data then must be easily and widelyaccessible to individuals even in the mostremote areas of the world through a set ofgeneric data access tools. The goal is to linkthe vast body of data resources, whether theyare small compilations, or large well-knowndata sources. The key tools are an efficient,

27

flexible, and standardized way to describeecological information, and a powerfulinformation searching capability. One importantresult will be the enormous savings in theecologist’s time—time that could be devoted tomore forward-thinking research.

Both undertakings were made possible bymodern digital technology. They are vastimprovements in the traditional ways ofecological record keeping and recovery. In thenot too distant past, ecologists (and otherscientists) kept their handwritten records inwaterproof field books, filed in dusty boxes oron office shelves. Some still do. Only the authormay have known where the information couldbe found, and after the author’s retirement ordeath, the sometimes valuable data would be lostto science.

Once scientists acquire datasets, they must beable to quickly analyze them, and transport theminto appropriate visualization tools that make thedata understandable. It will then be possible to

rapidly find, download, and analyze disparatedatasets to test an idea much in the way we nowuse abstracts of articles to get a sense of whether anew idea warrants our further consideration.Sophisticated visualization tools, including maps andlandscape-based Geographical Information System(GIS) data and virtual imaging, will makecommunication within and beyond the scientificcommunity easier and more effective, and allowmajor advances in ecological modeling. Throughimproved generic data input, access, and analysistools, standardized metadata, and open access toenvironmental data, more comprehensive analysisand synthesis of ecological knowledge will bepossible. Both the original gatherer of the data andthe science world at large will be the beneficiaries—as will, eventually, Earth’s health.

Several of the actions we recommend arealready being considered by others. This is veryencouraging. For example, the NSF’s LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) network hasmade great strides in some of the action areasbelow.

Box 6

Ecoinformatics and ECI The International Society for Ecological Informatics offers this definition of ecoinformations: “Ecological Informatics is defined as interdisciplinary framework promoting the use of advanced computational technology for the elucidation of principles of information processing at and between all levels of complexity of ecosystems—from genes to ecological networks—and aiding transparent decision making in relation to important issues in ecology such as sustainability, biodiversity and global warming.” Many other disciplines—medicine, agricultural research, and engineering are only a few—are working toward perfecting their own informatics resources. Ecological CyberInfrastructure is a close relative to informatics. According to the National Science Foundation, ECI can produce an “integrated high-end system of hardware, software, and services” that will allow scientists to “work on advanced research and education problems that would not otherwise be solvable.”

28

AR Action 8. Convince funding agencies andfederal agencies to require and support openaccess to data.

AR Action 9. Encourage training inecoinformatics both during graduate schooland in ongoing programs. The ESA couldpromote ongoing training through regular trainingworkshops and opportunities at its Annual Meeting.

Summary - Innovative andAnticipatory Research

Ecology is by its very nature an interdisciplinaryscience, making it impossible for any single ecologistto be well-versed in the details of every relevantdiscipline, method, or instrument. Yet, it is

increasingly obvious that ecologists must cometogether to help understand, solve, and anticipatethe environmental issues facing our world. To doso, ecologists may need to think of themselves asentrepreneurs in a shifting and pressure-drivenmarketplace, where strategic collaborations andrapid responses are keys to scientific success. Ourbest chance to succeed in those efforts is to have abroadly inclusive approach to ecological research.This approach must include actively recruitingexpertise beyond our discipline, as well as changingour own culture to best foster the innovations weneed. We are, in effect, a company facing enormouschallenges, but ones that, if met, will haveimmeasurable rewards. Like any successfulcompany, we must therefore be willing to changeour approach and structure rapidly to keep pacewith the demands of the modern and future world.

If this action plan is successful, we envision a futureecology with a diverse portfolio of new ideas,theories, methods, and technologies. Ambitious,comprehensive research programs will be underway by 2010, providing society with newknowledge that is made readily available toeducators, decision makers, and the public,including those members who are most enthusiastic:young people. All steps required to increaseecological understanding—from data acquisition toanalysis, interpretation, synthesis, and application,as well as research that anticipates the future andprobes the present and the past—will besignificantly enhanced within the coming decade.If successfully implemented, this new depth andbreadth of ecological understanding, including itsimproved communication beyond the discipline,would allow ecologists to play an influential andeminently helpful role in decisions made at all levelsthat affect the sustainability of the biosphere.

29

Recommended actions:

AR Action 6. Develop a data registry. Theregistry would be a simple form that characterizesthe core features of a data set, generating a datacatalog identifying the data and its owner. The ESAcould encourage all authors of articles in theSociety’s publications and presenters at itsmeetings to use the registry.

AR Action 7. Make raw data and metadataeasily and freely available. The ESA could leadthis effort, setting a goal that 20 percent of allpapers published in its own journals includemetadata by 2006. By 2008, all papers shouldmake associated raw data and metadata easily andfreely available. The ESA could help lead an effortto actively encourage federal and state agencies,NGOs, research centers and field laboratories andtheir scientific societies to follow suit.

Rationale

The goal of creating science for a sustainable worldthat includes an already large and increasing humanpopulation requires that human activities and aglobal perspective be vital components ofecological research. This means more than studyingdirect human impacts on the environment in one ormore particular areas. Rather, the complexity ofhuman economic, social, political, andenvironmental management activities at regional andglobal scales must be considered as a critical partof ecological systems, and the goal of ecologyshould include solving problems, not just describingthem. The effort to incorporate human processesinto research is under way (McDonnell and Pickett1993, McMichael et al. 2003) but needs toaccelerate. For example, in several sections of theUnited States, farmers and other citizens areworking with scientists to measure human effectson stream ecology.

Our report thus far has stressed ways in whichecological research can be accelerated throughbetter networking, creation of new research

VISION 3:

STIMULATE CULTURAL CHANGES FORA FORWARD-LOOKING AND INTERNATIONAL ECOLOGY

Vision Statement: Advancing ecological science for global sustainability requires that ecologicalscience become more international in scope, that ecologists develop advanced expertise in thecollaborative process, create new partnerships, and build diversity within the discipline. The cultureof ecology must be transformed to influence how we think both individually and institutionally sothat we can accomplish these goals and so that reward systems promote rather than hindercollaborations, partnerships, and diversity.

initiatives, educational outreach, and improvementsin technology and data-sharing. However, theability of the ecological sciences to deliver theknowledge that will help society understand andaddress environmental problems requires furtherchanges. Ecology’s culture requires new ways ofworking, better reward systems, and more fruitfulinteractions with other disciplines and new partners,nationally and internationally, as well as with thepublic.

In the last decade we have seen greater recognitionof the value of collaborative work, greaterinstitutional acceptance of applied research, anddiversification of career options in ecology. We needto go even further. We must build, develop andsupport successful and diverse collaborationsinvolving natural and social scientists as well asdecision makers. There must be rewards forleadership and increased diversity in ecology-related fields. Ecologists and institutions must thinkand act internationally to better address large-scaleenvironmental problems and solutions that willrequire multinational, as well as collaborative,approaches.

30

Action Areas for Stimulating Cultural Changes (CC) for the Ecological Sciences

A. Capture, translate and disseminate knowledge on successful collaboration.

B. Broaden diversity within ecology by promoting cross-disciplinary interactions and partnerships, and by increasing gender and ethnic diversity within the discipline.

C. Forge international linkages and globalize access to ecological knowledge.

Area A. Capture, translate and disseminateknowledge on successful collaboration.

In the future, the need will grow to seek out andamalgamate relevant expertise to address emergingand anticipated environmental problems, whichundoubtedly will become more complex.Multidisciplinary research will become less arhetorical ideal and more a reality and necessity.Teams will be built rapidly and often with memberswho have not collaborated with each other in thepast. These teams will need to provide solutionsor at least propose scientifically well-informedchoices over short periods of time. Given theseneeds, ecologists must approach the challenges ofcollaboration in more deliberate and self-reflectiveways in order to reduce the risk of unsuccessfulcollaborations and failed enterprises. While thereis already a general intellectual acceptance ofcollaboration as critical to ecological science, verylittle work has been done to examine how andwhere interdisciplinary collaboration occurs, whenand why it leads to scientific innovation, and whycollaborations sometimes fail. We need tounderstand what promotes successfulcollaborative enterprises and we need tocommunicate that knowledge within ourresearch communities. The result will be amarked change in ecological science’s veryculture.

Problem solving will demand many new forms ofcollaboration as well as the infrastructure to support

them. Funding programs need to recognize andsupport the increased level of communication andadministration necessary to carry out effective teamresearch. (The National Science Foundation’sbiocomplexity grants reflect this, to cite one of fewexamples.) We need mechanisms to promoteinternational, cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional collaborations. One way to do this isby providing resources and advice for the specialchallenges faced by groups made up of scientistsand nonscientists with diverse backgrounds andtraining. These issues demand that, on top of alltheir other duties, ecologists become moreknowledgeable about the collaborative process.

Collaboration training will apply to multiple levelswithin the community of ecologists, amongacademic disciplines, and between ecologists andother groups. It will promote dialogue amongecologists working in academia, agencies, and theprivate sector. Collaboration will foster dialoguebetween ecologists and other academic disciplines,and between ecologists and management agencies.Collaboration between ecologists and managers isespecially important to the practice of adaptivemanagement. Lack of trust and dialogue is oftenstated as a reason for the failure of promisingmanagement approaches (Walters 1998).

Study of interdisciplinary collaborative efforts bysocial scientists suggests that there are commonelements to successful collaboration. Theenvironmental science community should learn from

31

this new body of research in order to facilitatethe collaborative efforts necessary to addresscomplex environmental problems. We suggestpartnering high profile interdisciplinary groups ofscientists with social science researchers andprofessional facilitators in order to publicize thebenefits of collaborative efforts, as well as tolearn how to collaborate more effectively.Promoting effective collaborations will requiremanagerial skills and not just individualaccomplishment in scientific research. The ESAcan take a leadership role in working with othersocieties to promote training in collaboration andexpose ecologists to new research findings fromsocial scientists engaged in studyingcollaboration.


CC Action 1. Create resources that will helpecologists and their collaborators worktogether more effectively. Drawing on the latestsocial science research and building on theexperience of those who have engaged insuccessful collaborations, we can captureexisting knowledge and make it available to thescientific community.

CC 1a. Organize a working group composedof environmental scientists and socialscientists to publish a “primer” for successfulcollaboration. The guide would be used toeducate the community at large and serve asan important resource for newcollaborations.

CC 1b. Develop a leadership program thatfocuses on issues of collaboration amongapplied scientists, social scientists, and policymakers. The goal would be to help developleaders trained in the art of collaboration.This would be analogous to the Aldo LeopoldLeadership Program (http://www.leopoldleadership.org) but would be

focused on stimulating the success ofcollaborations.

CC Action 2. Stimulate proactive changesin flagship ecological journals and inmeeting symposia. These changes wouldreflect the increased emphasis oninterdisciplinary solution-driven science,particularly that which is focused on regional andglobal scale problems of joint interest toecological researchers and practitioners.

CC Action 3. Convene a meeting of keyleaders (National Academy or Royal Societylevel) in research, management, andbusiness to develop a plan for enhancing thereward systems for those who exerciseleadership in the environmental sciencesand those who foster novel scientificcollaborations. The reward system for appliedand solution-driven ecology should also beevaluated so that these contributions arepromoted within academic, government, andprivate sector institutions.

Area B. Broaden the human and disciplinarydimensions of ecology.

The field of ecology is more than an academicdiscipline, and its purview extends well beyondnational borders. For example, only half of allESA members are academic ecologists, andalthough it is a North American organization 16percent are not U.S. residents and 78 countriesare represented within ESA’s membership. Toperform more effective solution-driven scienceit is necessary that ecological researchers,managers, practitioners, and businesses work notonly collaboratively, but also across borders. Anexample of this strategy is the European Unionof Coastal Conservation (EUCC) (http://www.eucc.npl). The EUCC is an associationwith members and member organizations in 40countries, founded in 1989 with the aim of

32

promoting coastal conservation by bringingtogether scientists, environmentalists, site managers,planners, and policy makers. Currently, it is thelargest network of coastal practitioners and expertsin Europe. The EUCC sponsors activities thatpromote coastal conservation while integratingbiodiversity conservation with coastal development.It does so by mobilizing experts and stakeholders,providing advice and information, and implementingdemonstration projects.

Ehrmann (2003) notes that “a better understandingof the interrelationships between human well-beingand the goods and services provided byecosystems” can have an impact on business sectordecisions. Achieving global sustainabilityrequires that consideration of environmentalimpacts become as fundamental to thedecision-making processes of business as arecalculations of return on investment. In somecases, more forward-thinking businesses arealready practicing this; they have learned thatEarth’s resources are finite and that sustainabilityis good for business. Trade and industry have beensignificantly affected by environmental concernsover the past several decades, and ecologists canadvance ecological understanding and positivechanges in corporate perspectives (Hoffman1997). This requires fundamental alterations in therelationship between ecologists and the businesscommunity. The tendency for ecologists to simply“educate” business about environmental impactswhen asked must give way to partnerships in whichnon-industry and industry ecologists and businessrepresentatives learn from each other to further thelinked goals of economic and environmentalsustainability.

The impact of business practices on theenvironment is significant. Novel partnershipsbetween the public and private sectors that areinformed by ecological knowledge can result inbetter stewardship of ecosystem services-through,for example, changes in the way wastes are

disposed or environmentally persistent chemicalsare used (Loucks et al. 1999). The Council forEnvironmentally Responsible Economies(CERES), a coalition of environmental, investor,and advocacy groups, has produced a report onhow 20 of the world’s biggest emitters ofgreenhouse gases are factoring climate change risksand opportunities into their business practices(Cogan 2003). The report features a checklist ofspecific actions that companies can take to addressclimate change. Additionally, the Center forSustainable Systems Studies (O. Loucks, personalcommunication) is developing a guide to investmentthat would yield cheaper capital for companiesconserving resources and protecting theenvironment, and more expensive capital for thosewho do not. Ecologists can play increasingly activeroles in such projects through direct involvementor through research motivated by the needs of suchventures.

Ecologists can broaden the dimensions of theirdiscipline in several ways: 1) active engagementbetween scientific institutions such as the ESA andthe business community to enhance theunderstanding and use of ecological knowledge indecision making in sectors such as manufacturing,agriculture, resource extraction, and landdevelopment; 2) recognition of ecologicalresearchers, managers, and practitioners as equalpartners; 3) active recruitment of a greater diversityof people and their skills to the study of ecology;and 4) encouragement of broader metrics forevaluating scientists both within and outsideacademics. Existing disincentives for participatingin such collaborations must be lessened and newreward systems developed.

Moreover, ecologists must work with diversepopulations and in diverse contexts. Educatingpeople, partnering with diverse communities, andpersuading people to accept scientific expertise isa critical component of success in problem solving.Ecologists need to understand the varied

33

perspectives and special problems of variouscommunities. The ecological community shouldreflect the diversity that exists in society atlarge, to ensure that its expertise can be appliedand communicated to all sectors of humansociety. This includes not only ethnic, gender,and international diversity but diversity broughtby including perspectives from the businesssector, the NGO sector, the management sector,and the academic sector.


CC Action 4. Engage with the private sectorin four areas:

CC 4 a. Enhance the value for private sectorecologists of belonging to ESA and participatingin ESA activities. We can accomplish thisthrough annual and regional activities that focuson the application and use of ecologicalknowledge, through plenary speakinginvitations to private sector ecologists, andthrough development of workshops thataddress private sector problems. Privatesector ecologists should help define anddevelop this action item.

CC 4 b. Recruit private sector ecologists toleadership positions in the ESA, particularly theGoverning Board.

CC 4 c. Build cooperative partnershipsaddressing private sector needs. These wouldbe analogous to past and present partnershipswith federal agencies created through theESA’s Public Affairs, Education, and SciencePrograms Offices (Sustainable BiosphereInitiative) programs.

CC 4 d. Actively seek corporate support forthe ESA’s activities.

CC Action 5. Sponsor symposia, workshopsand projects that focus on the interface

between the work of ecological scientists andecological practitioners. These types of activitieswould strengthen the flow of ideas betweenecological scientists and ecological practitioners andprovide benefits to both. Participants could sharetheir state-of-the-art knowledge and identify gapsin information required for management.

CC Action 6. Promote ethnic and genderdiversity and equality in the ecologicalsciences. Ecological research should expandbeyond national borders and ethnic differencesbecause the solutions to environmental problemsand sustainability are inherently international andmulticultural. Thus, partnerships with sister societiesin other countries and programs to recruitunderrepresented groups should be promoted. TheESA should not only collect, but also report thedemographic statistics of Society membership inorder to promote more gender, ethnic, andinstitutional diversity in ecology. Demographictrends need to be tracked so that ESA staff andofficers can be more responsive to the itsmembership. The ESA should continue ongoingsuccessful efforts to recruit minority students intoecology through the SEEDS (Strategies forEcology Education, Development andSustainability) mentoring and other programs.

CC Action 7. Highlight nonacademic careerpaths in efforts such as SEEDS and othereducational programs. We will attract studentsfrom a greater diversity of backgrounds by pointingout the valuable contributions to ecologicalsustainability made by those in consulting firms,corporations, NGOs and government agencies andby increasing the visibility of those following othercareer paths.

Area C. Forge international linkages amongecological scientists and globalize access toecological knowledge.

The scale of ecological science must match the scaleof the most pressing challenges to ecological

34

sustainability, such as climate change, invasivespecies, depleted fisheries, and water and land usechanges (e.g., NRC 1999). Ecological sciencemust be as big and as important as theenvironmental challenges it seeks to meet. Thepredominantly national focus of manyprofessional societies and institutionsreinforces an insularity that impedesprogress on regional and internationalscientific problems. To broaden our discipline,in part, requires a more proactive approach topromote international cooperation amongecological and environmental scientists—in short,an alteration of the culture of ecology. For somescientists, this will bring uncomfortable change.But in the longer run, ecology will benefit greatlyas an accepted science and as a solver of globalproblems. We need to create a multinationalscience agenda for exchanging knowledge andbuilding collaborative multinational projects inareas that are critical for ecological sustainability.

Journal Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment as an initial activity.

Global access to ecological knowledgefosters novel and collaborative research andwill enhance the quality of ongoing projects.It will also make information accessible todecision makers in those parts of the worldwhere biodiversity and threats to biodiversityare highest, but the capacity to respond tothese threats is low.

CC 8 b. Ease the exchange of students,managers, and practitioners amonginstitutions of different countries. Exchangeprograms involving students, managers andpractitioners will have several positiveoutcomes: a) an update on ecologicalinformation and new technologies from othercountries; b) a greater appreciation of localknowledge in developing countries by thosefrom the developed countries; and c)international collaborations among students,managers and practitioners.

CC 8 c. Promote efforts to fosterinternational collaborations among ecologicalsocieties. These collaborations will have aprofound effect on research agendas andeducation programs by helping to buildnetworks of ecologists from differentcountries.

CC 8 d. Foster international collaborationby seeking funds for multinational jointresearch programs among academics andpractitioners. These could be similar toongoing programs between the EuropeanUnion and Latin America.

CC Action 9. Promote an internationalagenda for global ecological science. ESAcan hold thematic meetings that focus onsustainability science. They should highlightinternational or interdisciplinary needs for


CC Action 8. Globalize access to ecologicalknowledge.

CC 8 a. Routinely translate key articles fromprominent foreign ecology journals and othersources into English and vice versa. Toooften language poses a barrier that hindersaccess to ecological knowledge. Informationrelevant to scientists, students, managers, anddecision-makers in many countries may onlybe accessible in one language. Often thepublished language is English even if thescience originated in another country, and incontrast, if it is published in the indigenouslanguage, it is rarely accessible to thoseoutside the country. At the inaugural meetingof the Federation of the Americas at the ESA2003 Annual Meeting, participantsrepresenting six countries identifiedtranslation of articles as a priority for action.They recommended translation of the ESA

35

ecological science that have come out of forumssuch as the Convention on Biological Diversityand the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. The results of these meetings can bepublished and made widely available on the Web.An event at the joint meeting of ESA andINTECOL in August 2005 would be a good firststart as would the meeting ESA is already planningto hold in Mexico in early 2006.

CC Action 10. Bolster an international youngecologists research community.

CC 10 a. Develop an international EcologicalScholars program. These can be similar innature to the Rhodes and Gates Scholarsprogram.

CC 10 b. Create programs for exchange ofstudents and postdoctoral researchers toresearch labs and meetings.

issues and achieving sustainability. To meet thischallenge, we must consider the range of humaneconomic, social, political, and managementactivities and undertake collaborations that involvenatural and social scientists as well as decisionmakers from the local to the international level. Wemust work to globalize access to ecologicalknowledge and promote internationalcollaborations and an international research agendathat focuses on regional and international problems.Coordinated efforts to train ecologists in effectivecollaborations and the expansion of the rewardsystem for such activities will result in creative,novel, and productive programs that successfullyaddress global sustainability issues.

We envision an ecological community that isdistinguished by mutual respect among differentcultures and among members from the worlds ofacademia, industry, NGOs, education,management, and policy. Collaborations within theinternational community of ecologists, as well asamong other disciplines, will become business asusual and a key component of funding programsand professional success. Membership will mirrorthe gender and ethnic diversity of the globalcommunity and will be informed by the insights andexpertise this diversity brings. These changes willhave far-reaching benefits and ramifications acrossinstitutions, disciplines, and international borders.They will pave the way for ecological science tobe an effective partner in the multicommunity,multidisciplinary efforts to reach the globalsustainability that now is so essential.

Summary – Cultural Change

The culture of ecology has grown, adapted, andchanged throughout its existence. We are now at ajuncture in which change must accelerate to meetthe challenges we face if ecology is to play asignificant role in developing a sustainable futurefor our planet. Single scientists, working alone inthe field and in the laboratory, have given the worldmuch valuable knowledge already. But now,collaboration and inclusion have become thebackbones of addressing global environmental

36

Allen, W. 1999. Improving the use of collaborativeapproaches within natural resourcemanagement: knowledge and informationmanagement. [Online] URL: http://nrm.massey.ac .nz /changel inks /kno_inf.html.

Alpert, P. and A. Keller. 2003. Forum: Theecology–policy interface. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment 1(1): 45-50.

Bakshi, T.S. and Z. Naveh. (Ed.). 1980.Environmental education principles,methods and applications. Proceedings ofthe Symposium on ‘EnvironmentalEducation’, 2nd INTECOL Congress,September 1978, Jerusalem, Israel.Plenum Press. New York.

Bayley, P.B. 1989. Aquatic environments in theAmazon Basin with an analysis of carbonsources, fish production, and yield.Canadian Special Publications of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences 106: 399-408.

Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience 45:153-158.

Bennett, E.M., S.R. Carpenter, G.D. Peterson, G.S.Cumming, M. Zurek, and P. Pingali. 2003.Why global scenarios need ecology.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment1(6): 322-329.

Berkowitz, A.R. 1997. Defining environmentalliteracy: a call for action. Bulletin of theEcological Society of America 78(2): 170-172.

Berkowitz AR, Nilon CH, and Hollweg KS. (Eds.)2003. Understanding urban ecosystems: anew frontier for science and education. 8thCary Conference (1999): Institute ofEcosystem Studies. New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.

Blank, L. and C.A. Brewer. 2003. Forum: ecologyeducation when no child is left behind.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment1(7): 383-390.

Botkin, D.B., J.E. Estes, R.M. MacDonald, andM. Wilson. 1984. Studying the earth’svegetation from space. BioScience34:508-514.

Bradshaw, G.A. and J.G. Borchers. 2000.Perspective - uncertainty as information:narrowing the science-policy gap.

Literature Cited

Conservation Ecology 4(1): 7. [Online]URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol14/iss1/art7.

Burrows, S.N., S.T. Gower, M.K. Clayton, D.S.Mackay, D.E. Ahl, J.M. Norman, andG.Diak. 2002. Application of geostatisticsto characterize leaf area index (LAI) fromflux tower to landscape scales using a cyclicsampling design. Ecosystems 5:667-679.

Carpenter, S.R. 1998. Keystone species andacademic-agency collaboration.Conservation Ecology [online], 2 (1): R2.[Online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/resp2.

Cash, D.W., William C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M.Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger,and R.B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledgesystems for sustainable development.Science and Technology for SustainableDevelopment Special Feature.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 100: 8086-8091.

Castillo, A. 2000. Research: ecological informationsystem: analyzing the communication andutilization of scientific information inMexico. Environmental Management25(4): 383-392.

Castillo, A., S. Garcia-Ruvalcaba, and L.M.Martinez. 2002. Environmental educationas a facilitator of the use of ecologicalinformation: a case study in Mexico.Environmental Education Research 8 (4):395-411.

Clark, J.S., S.R. Carpenter, M. Barber, S. Collins,A. Dobson, J.A. Foley, D.M. Lodge, M.Pascual, R. Pielke, Jr., W. Pizer, C. Pringle,W.V. Reid, K.A. Rose, O. Sala, W.H.Schlesinger, D.H. Wall, and D. Wear.2001. Ecological forecasts: an emergingimperative. Science 293: 657-600.

Clark, W.C. and N.M. Dickson. 2003.Sustainability science: the emergingresearch program. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 100: 8059-8061.

Cogan, DG. 2003. Corporate governanceandclimate change: making the connection. ACERES Sustainable Governance ProjectReport, prepared by the InvestorResponsibility Research Center (IRRC).IRRC, Washington, DC ([Online] URL:

37

222/irrc.org) and CERES, Boston, MA([Online] URL: www.ceres.org).

CUAHSI: Consortium of Universities for theAdvancem,ent of Hydorlogic Sciences,Inc. 2004. [Online] URL:h t t p : w w w . c u a h s i . o r g / d o c s .NCHS_Workshop_report.pdf.

Daily, G.C. (Ed.) 1997. Nature’s services: societaldependence on natural ecosystems, IslandPress, Washington, DC.

D’Avanzo, C. 2003. Research on learning:potential for improving ecology teaching.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment1(10): 533-540.

Dobkowski, M and I, Walliman. 2002. On theEdge of Scarcity: Environment, Resources,Population, Sustainability and Conflict.Syracuse Univ Press, NY.

EIN: Ecological Information Network.2004.[Online] URL: http://www.ein.rbii.gov.

Ehrmann, J. 2003. Common interests: privatesector engagement with the MA. MANews: The Newsletter of the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment. September 2003:1-2.

Estrin, D., W. Michener, and G. Bonito. (Eds)2003. Environmental cyberinfrastructureneeds for distributed sensor networks.Scripps Institute of Oceanography, LaJolla, CA.

Faculty Institutes Reforming Science Teaching:FIRST II. 2004. [Online] URL: http://www.first2.org.

Fraterrigo, J., M.G. Turner, S.M. Pearson, and P.Dixon. Effects of past land use on spatialheterogeneity of soil nutrients in SouthernAppalachian forests. Submitted to Ecology.(In review).

Gleick, P. 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st Century. Science302: 1524-1528. A.M.

Gurnell, C.R. Hupp, S.V. Gregory. 2000. LinkingHydrology and Ecology.Special Issue ofHydrological Processes, Volume 14, Nos.16-17, 2813-3204.

Hale, M. (Ed.) 1993. Ecology in education.Proceedings of a symposium, “Generalunderstanding and role of ecology ineducation,” 5th INTECOL Congress,August 1990. Yokohama, Japan.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK.

Hastings, D.A. and W.J. Emery. 1992. Theadvanced very high resolution radiometer(AVHRR): a brief reference guide.Photogrammetric Engineering and RemoteSensing 58(8): 1183-1188.

Hastings, A. and M.A. Palmer. 2003. A brightfuture for biologists and mathematicians.Science 299: 2003-2004.

Hoffman, A.J. 1997. From heresy to dogma: aninstitutional history of corporateenvironmentalism. New Lexington Press,San Francisco.

IPCC. 2001. Summary for policy makers. TheThird Assessment Report of theInternational Panel on Climate ChangeWorking Group I. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge and New York.

ICSU: International Council for Science. 2002.ICSU Series on Science for SustainableDevelopment No. 5: Science Educationand Capacity Building for SustainableDevelopment. ICSU, Paris.

Jenkins, E.W. 2003. Environmental education andthe public understanding of science.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment1(8): 437-443.

Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989.The flood pulse concept in river-floodplainsystems. Canadian Special Publications ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110-127.

Kates, Robert W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M.Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy,H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N.M. Dickson,S. Faucheux, G.C. Gallopin, A. Gruebler,B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N.S. Jodha, R.E.Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H.Mooney, B. Moore III, T. O’Riordan, andU. Svedin. 2001. Sustainability science.Science 292: 641- 642.

Keys, C.W. and L.A. Bryan 2001. Co-constructing inquiry-based science withteachers: essential research for lastingreform. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 38(6): 631-645.

Kremen, C.J., O. Niles, M.G. Dalton, G.C. Daily,P.R. Ehrlich, J.P. Fay, D. Grewal, and R.P.Guillery. 2000. Economic incentives forrainforest conservation across scales.Science 288:1828-1832.

38

Lambert, J.M. (Ed.) 1966. The teaching of ecology.Proceedings of a Symposium of the BritishEcological Society, April 1966,Goldsmith’s College, University ofLondon, UK. Blackwell ScientificPublications. Oxford, UK.

Levy, S. 2003. Turbulence in the Klamath RiverBasin. BioScience 53:315-320.

Loucks O.L., Erekson O.H., Bol JW, GormanRF, Johnson PC, and Krehbiel TC. 1999.Sustainability perspectives for resourcesand business. Boca Raton, FL: LewisPublishers.

Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, L.B. Brubaker, S.R.Carpenter, M. Holland, S.P. Hubbell, S.A.Levin, J.A. MacMahon, P.A. Matson,J.M. Melillo, H.A. Mooney, C.H.Peterson, H.R. Pulliam, L.A. Real, P.J.Regal, and P.G. Risser. 1991. TheSustainable biosphere initiative: anecological research agenda. Report fromthe Ecological Society of America.Ecology: 72: 371–412.

Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of theenvironment: A new social contract forscience. Science 279: 491-497.

Lutz, W., W. Sanderson, and S. Scherbov. 2001.The end of population growth. Nature412:543-545.

Malard, F., K. Tockner and J. V. Ward. 1999.Shifting dominance of subcatchment watersources and flow paths in a glacialfloodplain, val Roseg, Switzerland. Arctic,Antarctic and Alpine Research 31: 135-150.

McDonnell, M.J. and S.T.A. Pickett. (Eds.) 1993.Humans as components of ecosystems: theecology of subtle human effects andpopulated areas. Springer-Verlag, NewYork.

McKeown, R. 2003. Working with K-12 schools:insights for scientists. BioScience 53: 870-875.

McMichael, A.J., C.D. Butler, and C. Folke. 2003.New visions for addressing sustainability.Science 302: 1919-1920.

MA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003.Ecosystems and human well-being. IslandPress, Washington, DC.

NAE: National Academy of Engineering. 2002. Acenter for scholarly research in engineeringeducation at the National Academy of

Engineering. Education Center WhitePaper, Washington, DC.

NASA-EOS: National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration Earth Observing SystemProgram. 2003. [Online]URL:http://www.eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov.

NCSE: National Council on Science and theEnvironment . 2003. Recommendations foreducation for a sustainable and securefuture. A Report of the 3rd NationalConference on Science, Policy, and theEnvironment, January 2003, Washington,DC.

NRC: National Research Council. 1986. Remotesensing of the biosphere. NationalAcademy Press, Washington DC.

NRC: National Research Council. 1999. Ourcommon journey: a transition towardsustainability. National Academy Press,Washington, DC.

NRC: National Research Council.. 2000. Globalchange ecosystems research. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC.

NRC: National Research Council.. 2001. Grandchallenges in environmental sciences.National Academy Press, Washington DC.

NRC: National Research Council.. 2003. NEON:addressing the Nation’s environmentalchallenges. National Academy Press,Washington DC.

National Sea Grant Office: Dean John A. KnaussMarine Policy Fellowships.[ O n l i n e ] U R L : h t t p : / /www.nsgo.seagrant.org/funding.html.

NSF: National Science Foundation.2000.Environmental science and engineering forthe 21st century: the role of the NationalScience Foundation. NSB 00-22. [Online]URL: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsb0022/start.htm.

NSF-ERE: National Science Foundation AdvisoryCommittee for Environmental Researchand Education. 2003. Complexenvironmental systems: synthesis for earth,life, and society in the 21st century.[Online] URL: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/acere_synthesis_rpt.cfm.

NEON. 2000. Report on first workshop of theNational Ecological ObservatoryNetwork. [Online] URL: http://i b r c s . a i b s . o r g / r e p o r t s / p d f /NEON1_Jan2000.pdf.

39

OST (Office of Science and Technology) andWellcome Trust. 2001. Science and thepublic: a review of science communicationand public attitudes toward science inBritain. Public Understanding of Science10: 315-330.

Palmer, M.A., P. Arzberger, J.E. Cohen, A.M.Hastings, R.D. Holt, J.L. Morse, D.Sumners, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. 2003.Accelerating mathematical-biologicallinkages: report from a joint NIH-NSFconference. February 2003. [Online] URL:http:// www.bisti.nih.gov/mathregistration/report.pdf.

Parsons, W. 2001. Practical perspective: scientistsand politicians: the need to communicate.Public Understanding of Science 10: 303-314.

Povilitis, T. 2001. Toward a robust naturalimperative for conservation. ConservationBiology 15(2): 533- 535.

Resilience Allience. 2004. [Online] URL:www.resilience.org/ev_en.php.

Rusak, J.A., N.D. Yan, K.M. Somers, K.L.Cottingham, F. Micheli, S.R. Carpenter,T.M. Frost, M.J. Paterson, and D.J.McQueen. 2002. A regional catalogue ofcrustacean zooplankton variability:temporal, spatial, and taxonomic patternsin unmanipulated north-temperate lakes.Limnology and Oceanography 47: 613-625.

SEEDS: Strategies for Ecology Education,Development and Sustainability. [Online]URL: http://www.esa.org/seeds/.

Slingsby, D. and S. Barker. 1998. From naturetable to niche: curriculum progression inecological concepts. International Journalof Science Education 20(4): 479-486.

Slingsby, D. 2001. Perceptions of ecology: bridgingthe gap between academia and publicthrough education and communication.Bulletin of the Ecological Society ofAmerica 82(2): 142-148.

Soulé, M.E. and G.H. Orians. 2001. Conservationbiology: research priorities for the nextdecade. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Thompson, J.N, O.J. Reichman, P.J. Morin,G.A. Polis, M.E. Power, R.W. Sterner,C.A. Couch, L. Gouch, R. Holt,D.U. Hooper, F. Keesing, C.R. Lovell,B.T. Milne, M.C. Mollesi, D.W. Roberts,

40

and S.Y. Strauss. 2001. Frontiers ofecology. BioScience 51:15-24.

Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology: TIEE.2004 . [Online] URL: www.ecoed.net/tiee.

Tockner K., F.Malard, J. V. Ward. 2000. Anextension of the flood pulse concept.Hydrological Processes 14:02861-2883.

Turner, B.L., P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W.Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, G.Hovelsrud-Broda, J.X. Kasperson, R.E.Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, S.Mathiesen, R. Naylor, C. Polsky, A.Pulsipher, A. Schiller, H. Selin, and N.Tyler. 2003. Illustrating the coupledhuman-environment system for vulnerablityanalysis: three case studies. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences 100:8080-8085.

UNEP. 1999. United Nations EnvironmentalProgram Global Environmental Outlook.GEO-2000. [Online] URL:www.unep.org/geo2000/ov-e/ov-e.pdf..

Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Ecology and global change.Ecology 75:1861-1876.

Walczyk, J.J. and L.L. Ramsey. 2003. Use oflearner-centered instruction in collegescience and mathematics classrooms.Journal of Research in Science Teaching40(6): 566-584.

Walters, C.J. 1998. Improving links betweenecosystem scientists and managers. pp.272-286. In M. L. Pace and P.M.Groffman (Ed.). Successes, Limitations,and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science.Springer, New York.

Ward J. V., K. Tockner, F. Schiemer. 1999.Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems:Ecotones and connectivity. RegulatedRivers15:125-139.

Ward, JV, K. Tockner. D. B. Arscott and C.Claret: 2002. Riverine landscape diversity.Freshwater Biol. 47: 517-539.

Wiens, J. A. 2002. Riverine Landscapes: takinglandscape ecology into the water.Freshwater Biology 47: 501-515.

Worcester, R. 2000. Science and society: whatscientists and the public can learn from eachother. Lecture to the Royal Institution ofGreat Britain, September 29, 2000.

Worcester, R. 2002. Public understanding ofscience. Biologist 49(4): 143.

The Ecological Visions Project was supportedthrough grants from the Packard Foundation, theMellon Foundation, the National ScienceFoundation, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, the US Environmental ProtectionAgency, the US Geological Survey, and the USDepartment of Agriculture.

Over the twelve months that the committeeconducted its work, innumerable people pushedus to work harder and be more creative throughtheir suggestions, insight, critical reviews, and directchallenges to our ideas. We received extensiveinput from colleagues within the ESA, otherscientific disciplines, government andnongovernmental communities, and industry.

The following people provided valuable insightsthrough participation in early committee meetings:Becky Allee, NOAA; Ann Bartuska, Past-President ESA; USFS; Jerry Elwood, DOE; JeffFrithsen, EPA; David Goldston, US House ScienceCommittee; Lara Hansen, World Wildlife Fund;Susan Haseltine, USGS; Gretchen Hofmann,University of California Santa Barbara; AnthonyJanetos, Heinz Center; and John Melack,University of California Santa Barbara; Mark Poth,USDA; Peter Preuss, EPA; Silvio Olivieri,Conservation International; Dar Roberts Universityof California Santa Barbara, Catriona Rogers,EPA; Don Scavia, Michigan Sea Grant; GeraldSelzer, NSF; Mark Schildhauer, National Centerfor Ecological Analysis (NCEAS); Jeff Ruch, PublicEmployees for Environmental Responsibility; VikkiSpruill, SeaWeb; NCEAS Post-doctoralAssociates.

The committee received invaluable feedback andcritique of our initial ideas from the following peoplewho gave of their time and expertise during ourJuly 2003 breakfast meetings or other times: AlAbee, US Forest Service; Becky Allee, NOAA;David Blockstein, National Council on Science and

Acknowledgements

the Environment (NCSE); Peter Boice, DOD; TomBrooks, Conservation International; Jim Clark,Exxon/Mobil; Jerry Elwood, DOE; Penny Firth,NSF; Mike Frame, USGS; Thomas Franklin, TheWildlife Society; Peter Frumhoff, Union ofConcerned Scientists; Stephen Gasteyer, RuralCommunity Assistance Program; Lara Hansen,World Wildlife Fund; Susan Haseltine, USGS; TedHeintz, Council on Environmental Quality; AnthonyJanetos, Heinz Center; Diana Jerkins, USDA;Gretchen Hofmann, University of California SantaBarbara; Janice Larkin, DOD; Orie Loucks, MiamiUniversity; Nadine Lymn, ESA; Shirley Malcolm,AAAS; John Melack, UC-Santa Barbara; SilvioOlivieri, Conservation International; SamuelRankin, American Mathematical Society; DouglasRipley, Air National Guard; Keith Robinson, UnitedNations Environment Program; Catriona Rogers,EPA; Sam Scheiner, NSF; Craig Schiffries, NCSE;Mark Schildhauer, NCEAS; Fran Sharples,National Academy of Sciences; David Simpson,Resources for the Future; Maggie Smith, ESA;Jason Taylor, ESA; Saran Twombly, NSF; RobinWhite, World Resources Institute; Cal Wieder,NSF; John Wiens, The Nature Conservancy.

The committee would also like to acknowledgesubstantive contributions from Nancy Baron,SeaWeb/ COMPASS. Special thanks are due toAshley Simons of SeaWeb, Diana Rhoten of theSocial Science Research Council, Carol Brewerof the University of Montana, and WilliamSchlesinger from Duke University for theirsignificant contributions to the committee, and toJim Ehlringer and Rodolfo Dirzo, who providedearly input before resigning from the committee dueto conflicting time commitments. We would alsolike to thank several institutions for their support:The National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis; the Sevilleta Field Research Station; theHarbor Hills Yacht Club; and the University ofMaryland.

41

We would like to thank the ESA Governing Boardfor their support and input during the project andthe development of this Report, especially AnnBartuska and William Schlesinger, who workedwith the committee during their tenures as ESAPresident. We also express our appreciation to theESA staff in Washington, DC and Silver Spring,Maryland for their support both intellectually andlogistically throughout the project, with specialthanks to the ESA’s Executive Director KatherineMcCarter and to Webmaster Moe Zaw-Aung forhis work in developing the Project website and themembership questionnaire. We would also like tothank the members of ESA’s Education andHuman Resources Committee (EHRC) for theirthoughtful input on ecology education. We extendour appreciation to Fred Powledge who

42

transformed our original report into a considerablymore readable document.

We wish to acknowledge and give special thanksto Pamela Matson, ESA Past-President, StanfordUniversity , who had the insight to initiate the projectand provided expertise and support during all ofthe early phases.

And our most important thank-you goes to theESA members who provided invaluable directionand ideas through the questionnaire, the discussionsession at ESA’s 2003 Annual Meeting inSavannah, and through individual email andpersonal discussions with members of thecommittee.

AAAS — American Association for theAdvancement of Science

AR — anticipatory research

ASLO — American Society of Limnology andOceanography

AVHRR — advanced very high resolutionradiometer

BEN — Biological Education Network

CASEE — Center for the Advancement ofScholarship on Engineering Education

CC — cultural changes

CEIS — Centers for the Ecological Implementationof Solutions

CERC — Center for Environmental Research andConservation

CERES — Council for EnvironmentallyResponsible Economics

CLEANER — Collaborative Large-scaleEngineering Analysis Network for EnvironmentalResearch

CUAHSI — Consortium of Universities for theAdvancement of Hydrologic Science Incorporated

ECI — Ecological CyberInfrastructure

EIN — Ecological Information Network

EPA — Environmental Protection Agency (US)

ERIC — Educational Resources InformationCenter

ERIN – Ecological Research InfrastructureNetwork

ESA — Ecological Society of America

EUCC — European Union of CoastalConservation

Appendix 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations

FIRST — Faculty Institutes Reforming ScienceTraining

GIS — Geographical Information System

ICSU — International Council of Scientific Unions

ID — informing decisions

IEK — informed by ecological knowledge

INTECOL — International Ecology EducationConference

IPCC — International Panel on Climate Change

K-12 — kindergarten through 12th grade

LTER — Long Term Ecological ResearchNetwork

NAE — National Academy of Engineering (US)

NASA-EOS — National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration—Earth Observing System (US)

NCEAS — National Center for EcologicalAnalysis and Synthesis

NCSE — National Council on Science and theEnvironment

NEON — National Ecological ObservatoryNetwork (US)

NGO — non-governmental organization

NIH — National Institutes of Health (US)

NOAA — National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (US)

NRC — National Research Council (US)

NSF — National Science Foundation (US)

NSF-ERE — National Science Foundation—Environmental Research and Education (US)

OBFS — Organization of Biological Field Stations

43

PIER — Programs for Integrative EcologicalResearch

SBI — Sustainable Biosphere Initiative

SeaWeb/COMPASS — SeaWeb’sCommunication Partnership for Science and theSea

SEEDS — Strategies for Ecology Education,Development, and Sustainability

SYEFEST — Schoolyard Ecology for ElementarySchool Teachers

44

TIEE — Teaching Issues and Experiments inEcology

TNC — The Nature Conservancy

UC-Santa Barbara — University of California atSanta Barbara

URL — Uniform Resource Locator

USDA — United States Department of Agriculture

WWF — World Wildlife Federation

Meeting 1: January 6-8, 2003, Washington,DC

Committee Attendees: Margaret Palmer,Emily Bernhardt, Liz Chornesky, Cliff Duke, JimEhlringer, Robb Jacobson, Rhonda Kranz, MikeMappin, Fiorenza Micheli, Jen Morse, Mike Pace,Mercedes Pascual, Steve Palumbi, Jim Reichman,Bill Schlesinger, Alan Townsend, Monica Turner.

Guests: Becky Allee, NOAA; AnnBartuska, ESA Past-President, TNC; Scott Collins,NSF (now University of New Mexico); JerryElwood, USDE; Jeff Frithsen, EPA; Lara Hansen,WWF; Sue Haseltine, US Geological Survey; TonyJanetos, Heinz Center; Katherine McCarter, ESAExecutive Director; Pamela Matson, ESA Past-President, Stanford; Mark Poth, USDA; SilvioOlivieri, Conservation International; Peter Preuss,EPA; Catriona Rogers, EPA; David Rogers,NOAA; Don Scavia, NOAA; Gerald Selzer,National Science Foundation.

Pam Matson and Ann Bartuska opened the meetingwith a charge to the Committee to develop aStrategic Action Plan for ESA. The plan will act asa follow-up to the Sustainable Biosphere InitiativeReport but with an implementation strategy. Theresult must go beyond a priority statement. It shoulddo the following: (1) refresh the agenda of ecology;(2) identify impediments to progress in ecology;and 3) suggest mechanisms for overcoming theseimpediments. One of the goals of this initiative is tosupport the recent shift in the focus of ESA to moreapplied ecology and to increase the value of“practical science.”

Several presentations were given in the morningsof the first and second days of the meeting.Katherine McCarter and Rhonda Kranz gave anoverview of the structure of ESA. This was followedby a discussion of the outcome of the recent NSFGeosciences-funded workshop through ASLO,and their future direction ideas. The Committeeheard presentations and had helpful discussions

Appendix 2: Summary of Committee Meetings

with representatives from six governmentalagencies and three NGOs. They provided theCommittee with an overview of what theircommunities would like from the ecologicalcommunity. Ideas discussed included: providinginformation to act as ammunition for agency andorganizational programs; more active involvementin management issues; help in educating the publicwith the idea that policymakers will follow the public;putting good scientists into top positions withinfunding agencies; providing research results morequickly and more widely; sharing data in order toaccomplish urgent tasks; being bold and thinkingbig—asking the critical questions and finding themoney; increasing the math skills among ecologygraduates; more ecological training for nonecologists; increasing minority recruitment;developing more modeling/forecasting/predictivecapacity; developing more collaborations;providing more training; increasing the convergencebetween scientific initiatives and conservation/management needs; supporting the increase inmonitoring networks.

All Committee members provided their vision forwhat could be accomplished as a result of theEcological Visions project. The group aimed atdeveloping a short vision statement that wascompelling, easy to understand, inspiring, and justout of our reach. The following draft statement wasproposed:

We are in an era of unprecedentedenvironmental change that demands more fromecologists. The ecology of the future mustexplain and predict our shared environment.Ecology must also be embedded in educationto enhance public decision-making. The fieldof ecology must be poised to create aresponsive and integrated science thatharnesses the explosion of ecologicalknowledge, solves societal problems, andincreases fundamental knowledge about

45

humans and the natural world. A revolutionarychange is required in the way ecologicalinformation is gathered and used in research,education, and public decision making.

The group discussed research priorities, concludingthat it was important to use the recommendationsfrom previous reports such as those of NSF andNRC, but that the Committee must go beyondsetting priorities to identifying specific actions tobe undertaken. Four initiatives were identified aspriorities in speeding progress in ecology. Workinggroups were formed to draft a document on each:• Information Acquisition By and Access For All• Necessary Cultural Shifts• Outreach and Education (to all sectors of

society)• Technological Innovation & Development.

Meeting 2: April 1-3, 2003, NCEAS, SantaBarbara, CA

Committee Attendees: Margaret Palmer,Emily Bernhardt, Scott Collins, Rodolfo Dirzo,Andy Dobson, Cliff Duke, Barry Gold, RobbJacobson, Sharon Kingsland, Rhonda Kranz, MikeMappin, Fiorenza Micheli, Jen Morse, Mike Pace,Mercedes Pascual, Jim Reichman, Alan Townsend.

Guests: Gretchen Hofmann, UC-SantaBarbara; John Melack, UC-Santa Barbara; DarRoberts, UC-Santa Barbara; Mark Schildhauer,National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis; NCEAS Post-doctoral Associates.

The Committee welcomed three new members:Scott Collins (University of New Mexico), SharonKingsland (Johns Hopkins University) and BarryGold (Packard Foundation).

The meeting focused on the “InformationTechnology” and “Research Innovations” Visions(developed from the information acquisition by andaccess for all and the technological innovation &development working groups). Presentations weregiven by a number of scientists from NCEAS andUC-Santa Barbara scientists.

Participants identified internationalization as a fifthVision.

A decision was made to follow a rapid timetablewith publishable forms of the Committee’srecommendations to be complete and submittedby the end of December 2003. In addition to theReport to the ESA Governing Board, theCommittee will pursue two publications to unveilthe Action Plan.

The Committee developed a plan to obtain inputfrom the ESA community at large, as well as federalagency representatives, NGOs, and industryrepresentatives. The plan includes: 1) a series ofbreakfast briefings in Washington D.C.; 2) aquestionnaire to go out to the ESA membership;3) a report to the ESA Governing Board in May;4) communication with the ESA Section chairs; 5)collaboration with the ESA Education and PublicAffairs office; 6) a lunch meeting with the LatinAmerican Ecological Society presidents at the ESAmeeting in Savannah; and 7) an open forum anddiscussion about the Initiative at the ESA meetingin Savannah.

The members of the working groups werereconstituted and will continue to be fluidthroughout the process. Working groups willcontinue to work on the five Vision area documents.

Meeting 3: August 24-28, 2003, Annapolis,MD

Committee attendees: Margaret Palmer,Emily Bernhardt, Liz Chornesky, Scott Collins,Andy Dobson, Cliff Duke, Barry Gold, RobbJacobson, Sharon Kingsland, Rhonda Kranz, MikeMappin, Marisa Martinez, Fiorenza Micheli, JenMorse, Mike Pace, Mercedes Pascual, StevePalumbi, Jim Reichman, Alan Townsend.

Guests: Carol Brewer, University of Montana;David Goldston, the House Science Committee;Katherine McCarter, ESA; Diana Rhoten, HybridVigor, Stanford University; Jeff Ruch, PublicEmployees for Environmental Responsibility;

46

Ashley Simons, SeaWeb; Vikki Spruill, SeaWeb;Jason Taylor, ESA.

The Committee accepted the resignations ofmembers Rodolfo Dirzo and Jim Ehlringer, andwelcomed new Committee member MarisaMartinez (Institute of Ecology,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México).

The meeting centered around three goals: 1)refocusing the goals of the project and beginningto prioritize actions; 2) developing the ideas andframework for Committee products; and 3)enhancing the “Public Education & Outreach,”“Catalyzing Cultural Change,” and“Internationalization” Visions.

The Committee received considerable feedbackfrom the ESA membership questionnaire, thebreakfast meetings, and the ESA Governing Board.The consensus among these groups was that thepriority should be a focus on building an informedpublic, including students, citizens, consumers,managers, and elected officials.

The Committee discussed the until-now impliedgoal of sustainability in developing an action plan.Sustainability will be used as the organizing themeof the Initiative.

The Committee’s Vision statement was revised:

Environmental issues define our future;ecological science will help determine our fate.Our world has billions of people and we, likeall living organisms, modify our environment andwill continue to do so. Our vision of the futureis a world with sustainable ecosystems thatinclude those billions of people. Ecology alonecan not get us there but our input is essential.The science of ecology can then make itpossible for society to achieve sustainability.

The purview of the Ecological Visions Committeewas discussed. It was agreed that within each of

47

the Vision areas there are overarching andambitious goals for the broader audience ofenvironmental scientists, funding agencies, andmanagers, as well as subsidiary and moreimmediately attainable goals that are specific toESA.

Five products to be developed by the EcologicalVisions Committee were identified: 1) a Report tothe ESA Governing Board to articulate a plan andprovide specific actions; 2) publication of a paperin a high-profile journal such as Science to elicit a“call to action”; 3) a public forum at the ESA AnnualMeeting to get the word out and obtain feedback;4) presentations at meetings of other societies toforge partnerships; and 5) an issue in Frontiers toprovide details of the plan and its application tothe broad ecological community.

Meeting 4: October 31 – November 3, 2003,Sevilleta Field Research Station, Albuquerque,NM

Committee attendees: Margaret Palmer,Emily Bernhardt, Liz Chornesky, Scott Collins, CliffDuke, Barry Gold, Robb Jacobson, SharonKingsland, Rhonda Kranz, Mike Mappin, MarisaMartinez, Fiorenza Micheli, Jen Morse, Mike Pace,Steve Palumbi, Jim Reichman, Bill Schlesinger, AlanTownsend, Monica Turner.

Guests: Ashley Simons, SeaWeb.

The goal of this meeting was to complete both adraft of the Report to ESA and a draft of a paperto be submitted to the journal Science. Thecommittee condensed the five Vision areas intothree:

• Innovations (will combine the ResearchInnovations and Technological Innovation).

• Developing an Informed Public.• Cultural Change (which will incorporate

Internationalization).

The group discussed the form and content of theReport with ESA President Bill Schlesinger.

Margaret Palmer, Clifford Duke and RhondaKranz met with 3 small groups of eight to ten peoplefor breakfast meetings in July 2003 to discuss theEcological Visions project, solicit feedback, andbuild relationships. Attendees included colleaguesfrom agencies, NGOs, industry, and associations(a participant list closes this document). Thediscussions were very lively, each lasting well overthe scheduled 1.5 hours. Everyone was positiveabout the project and asked to be kept involved.Below are some of the most interesting commentsand suggestions. Many of these were commonthemes, heard independently from each group.

Collaborations and Users of EcologicalKnowledge:• We have to be more ambitious about

education—not just classroom and informal,but the “democratization” of science andmaking the results important and usable.

• A practical approach for ESA would be tofocus on bridging functions to differentorganizations and types of communities.

• We need to encourage collaboration andprojects with stakeholders, not just otherscientists.

• We need to target “local folks” and get moreecology into the hands of those makingdecisions at the local level of government,packaging tools in such a way as to make themusable and available.

• The perspective of the decision maker mustbe incorporated, as ecologists do notnecessarily understand local decisionprocesses.

• We have to break down barriers betweencommunity development specialists andscientists.

• Regulators and engineers within the localcommunities need to work with ecologists.

• Datasets that are useful to management mustbe developed.

Appendix 3: Ecological Visions Breakfast Briefings

• We should keep in mind the importance of theprivate sector and NGOs and involve them inthe research community.

• We need better dialogue among basicresearchers and practitioners at the corporatelevel. Currently they don’t feel as if they haveinfluence and are left out of the process.

• We need ecologists in decision makingpositions in government.

• We should make use of the large amount ofsocial science literature on perceptions ofscience by the public. Surveys show that thepublic respects science. That is part of theproblem, as they want to take what is said byscientists as the final truth and scientists knowit isn’t.

• We need to encourage collaborations withsocial scientists who have done research infields such as water use and who areknowledgeable in the use of these types of data.

• We should figure out how we can help get thepublic/community to think about processinstead of issues. Scientists think that “normal”people can’t do this, only the highly trained likethem. But if the process is scaled down andinvolves the community it would help withdecision-making.

• BEN (Biological Education Network) is anexample of groups of biological societiesworking together. They have already decidedon metadata for sharing information.

The Scientific Community:• Reward systems within the private sector and

agencies, as well as in academia, need to beaddressed.

• We need to encourage outreach by scientists.A successful model is the Canon ParksFellowship, where students have to do a paperon the application of their work to managementissues in the parks, and they have to make apublic presentation on their work.

48

• The scientific community needs to developself-awareness and learn how it is perceivedas well as how it conducts science in relationto other disciplines.

Lessons from Economists on Data Set CollectionNetworks:• Economics benefits from government programs

that provide periodically updated data sets.Development of an ecological data collectionnetwork would benefit both management needsand research.

• To sell the idea, we need to do as theeconomists have done and make sure thepayoff (benefit) of the network extends beyondresearch. We need to get the data to membersof the public, updated year after year, in thesame way that they have become accustomedto getting economic data.

• Even though economics data has holes,economists have agreed to move forward withwhat they have.

• Economists have been able to put economicsinto plain, understandable language. Ecologistsneed to do the same.

Data and Information• Long-term data sets are key. It is primarily

government resources and institutions that havethe resources and stability to do this.

• Clarify that we are talking about multi-scale,not just large scale.

• Predictive models are very important. Incommunicating with the public we need to beable to say what we can or cannot expect.

• A conceptual model on how to use the data isneeded—not just what is usable but what isthe desirable outcome.

• Coordination of standards and technology arebeing developed and standards and techniquestraining taking place globally. We need moretraining.

International Issues• Data and information are not as available to

decision makers in developing countries.• We have to build networks of ecologists in

developing countries and produce ways toincrease data and metadata access.

• The distinction between applied and basicresearch is very American and strange toscientists in other countries.

• To internationalize ESA towards those partsof the planet where biodiversity and threats tobiodiversity are highest, and where capacityto respond to these threats is lowest, will takea range of low-tech solutions, as well as high-tech efforts.

• A major challenge is to get higher priority forenvironmental concerns in private sectorplanning. Corporations invest in localinfrastructure internationally, but environmentalbenefits are often a low priority.

• In many countries, environmental knowledgeis held locally and is political. We needknowledge about the different local ways ofunderstanding.

• In developing countries, ecology only makessense when related to improving quality of life.Urban ecology is increasingly important indeveloping countries.

• We should vet ideas with people who are from,and work in, the international community.

Framing the Discussion:• We need to ask great simple questions that the

public can get excited about. Successful large-scale infrastructure projects draw support byposing clear, simple questions and stating thatthe project will answer the question.

• Security is an idea people understand. Forexample, we need to understand the watershedto be able to protect it against terrorism. Butwe have to be careful, as mentioning securitycan also be seen as “ambulance chasing.”

49

• The vision has to be from more than theperspective of a research ecologists.Switching the issues around to “what canbe learned from ecology” would be moreeffective.

• Sustainability is a way to encapsulate bigideas. It brings together social science,economics, and ecology in oneframework.

• We should emphasize the fundamentalimportance of taxonomy and systematics andthe current extinction crisis.

• People need to be part of the vision. Thereneeds to be a sense of human value in additionto being scientifically interesting and inspiring.

• We need to include the words “private” and“public” in the language we use in the Report.

• The private sector generates lots of informationbut generally the research is not driven byunderstanding functions of a system, but ratherby getting the information needed for a permitor other immediate need. It is often theconsultants who do the interconnecting.

Direction of Research and Funding:• Future directions of funding are changing for

agencies and in many cases going from adisciplinary base to large mega issues. Fundingmay be eliminated in the competitive processwithin agencies. Agencies will be movingtoward projects that focus on regionalproblems and involve multidisciplinary teams.

• We need to create financial incentives to crossinterdisciplinary boundaries.

• Lots of government funding for research isstatic or down.

• We should be looking to NIH to fundecological research in its connections to humanhealth.

Participants in the July 2, 11, 18 Breakfastmeetings:

Al Abee, USFS; David Blockstein, NationalCouncil for Science and the Environment; PeterBoice, DOD; Tom Brooks, ConservationInternational; Jim Clark, Exxon/Mobil; Mike Frame,US GS; Thomas Franklin, Wildlife Society; JeffFrithsen, EPA; Stephen Gasteyer, RuralCommunity Assistance Program; Susan Haseltine,USGS; Ted Heintz, Council on EnvironmentalQuality; Tony Janetos, Heinz Center; Diana Jerkins,USDA; Janice Larkin, DOD; Nadine Lymn, ESA;Shirley Malcolm, AAAS; Katherine McCarter,ESA; Peter Preuss, EPA; Samuel Rankin, AmericanMathematical Society; Douglas Ripley, AirNational Guard; Keith Robinson, United NationsEnvironment Program; Craig Schiffries, NationalCouncil for Science and the Environment; FranSharples, National Academy of Sciences; DavidSimpson, Resources for the Future; Maggie Smith,ESA; Jason Taylor, ESA; Robin White, WorldResources Institute.

50

Appendix 4: Summary of Responses to the Web-based Survey

A web-based survey was created and posted onthe Ecological Visions website from June 3 toAugust 20, 2003, to solicit input and feedback fromESA members on the project’s objectives andprogress. The survey was publicized by e-mail toESA members and at the ESA Annual Meeting inSavannah.

Approximately 280 people (85 percent of whomwere ESA members) participated in the survey,answering questions and providing their ideas toimprove the Ecological Visions project. About two-thirds of respondents held doctorates, 21 percenthad masters degrees, while the remainder hadbachelors degrees or other education.Respondents were largely affiliated with academicinstitutions (68 percent), with 16 percentgovernment, 8 percent non-profit, and 3 percentindustry affiliations.

The survey was comprised of five sections on theindividual Visions areas and one concluding section.

Section 1. Ecological Research in the 21s t

Century: A Vision of a Diverse, High-tech andMulti-scale Scientific Approach

Current ESA initiatives to advance ecologicalresearch and insight. Participants were askedto provide examples of current ESA projects thatwill lead to significant advances in ecology. ESA’ssupport for existing programs such as NCEAS andthe LTER system, and this Ecological Visionsinitiative were the main responses, though repliesto this question were not numerous.

ESA initiatives to improve ecologists’ abilityto answer key ecological questions of thecoming decades. Each participant was asked tosubmit three imaginative ideas for ESA initiativeson this topic. Comments were wide-ranging,

including facilitating training in new technologies andmethods; helping ecologists to develop workingrelationships with agencies; defining researchpriorities; and promoting coordinated researchapproaches and applied research for solvingenvironmental problems.

Barriers to innovation and new technology.Participants ranked a lack of adequate funding asthe primary barrier to incorporating innovative toolsand approaches into ecological research; followedby cultural barriers to large, coordinated researchefforts; insufficient quantitative and technical trainingof ecologists; and, finally, a lack of appropriate oraffordable technology. Other comments includedinadequate theoretical basis for research questions;the pressures of publishing; and funding decisionsbased not on innovation but other goals.

In their own research, respondents said that a lackof money (39 percent) and a lack of training (30percent) were the main obstacles to using cuttingedge technology. Other responses indicated nointerest in changing methods (18 percent) or noneed for new technologies (7 percent). Only 6percent of those that responded said that theylacked information about new tools and less than2 percent said that the tools they need do not exist.Other submissions included concerns aboutreviewers of proposals and manuscripts, as wellas resistance to the implication that big,interdisciplinary research with new technology isthe only way to address ecological questions.

Innovative tools. This last question askedparticipants to describe any single tool that wouldimprove their research. Many responses wereintentionally humorous. The serious responseswished for remote sensing and GIS, with landcover, data visualization, or soil moisture sensingcapabilities; others included nanosensors; satellite

51

radio collars for birds; and automatedinstrumentation for plankton measuring.

Section 2. Representing EcologicalKnowledge

Synthesis efforts and data sharing. More thanhalf of respondents (57 percent) said they hadcontributed their data to a synthesis effort, and 36percent of those had actually participated in thesynthesis effort. Twenty-eight percent ofrespondents said they had been the principalauthors of a synthesis paper. Proprietary concernsover sharing data (57 percent) were the greatestbarrier to data sharing, followed by datacompatibility (51 percent), lack of recognition forsharing data (49 percent), difficulty in providingdocumentation (37 percent), and non-electronicdata storage (18 percent). Twenty-seven percentof respondents said that no one had asked for theirdata, while 2 percent said they preferred not toshare their data at all. Other answers included: timeand training barriers to preparation of data forsharing; database compatibility; lack of standardsfor documentation; lack of clearinghouses for data;and the feeling that the original data collectors shouldhave priority in analyzing their data before beingexpected to share them.

Data storage and documentation. Less than halfof the respondents (35 percent) said they hadcompiled electronic metadata for their data files. Astandard protocol was favored by 60 percent tofacilitate the maintenance of metadata, while 54percent and 44 percent said that more time andmoney would make it easier. Two technologicalbarriers, appropriate software (41 percent) andmore storage space (14 percent) were also sited.From the other responses submitted, it was clearthat many participants did not understand the term“metadata” to mean the documentation of dataattributes, thus illustrating part of the barriers todata sharing. Data were most frequently stored infield or laboratory notebooks (63 percent), on

floppy disks (41 percent), on hard disks (79percent), in personal databases (49 percent), inmanaged databases without public access (26percent) and with public access (18 percent).

Publicly available data for synthesis. Only 11respondents answered the question as to whetherthey would be likely to use publicly availableecological data for synthesis purposes. Six said theywould be very likely and 5 not at all likely to usethese data. However, 162 people expressed theirconcerns about using publicly available data, citingdata quality (78 percent), documentation (65percent), compatibility of units and methods (52percent), and a lack of clear guidelines for creditingcontributors of data (38 percent). Other concernsincluded possible bias in data submitted to arepository; using data for other than their intendedpurpose; and lack of knowledge about the methodsof data collection.

Roles for ESA to facilitate data sharing. Ideassubmitted included the following: support of astandardized data protocol and criteria for citationsin its journals, including guidelines and codes ofethics for using others’ data; lobbying forestablishment of a National Ecological DataArchive; and expanding the Ecological Archives.

Section 3. Catalyzing Cultural Change

Collaboration/Interdisciplinary Research.Respondents were asked about barriers toperforming collaborative and/or interdisciplinaryresearch. Nearly half cited concerns aboutimpeding professional development (45 percent),closely followed by lack of credit given to multi-authored efforts (38 percent), lack of a commonlanguage with other disciplines (34 percent),publication barriers to interdisciplinary work (32percent), and lack of opportunities to interact withpotential collaborators. Only 1 percent said theypreferred not to engage in collaborative orinterdisciplinary research. Other responses cited

52

lack of time and funds. In particular, respondentsdescribed a lack of funding mechanisms formultidisciplinary research and collaboration. Somepeople also felt that their institutions discouragedinterdisciplinary work and collaboration. Othersexpressed difficulties in identifying potentialcollaborators. However, many respondentsreported no problems or barriers to theircollaborative work.

Mentoring. Fifty-four of 154 respondentsreported that they had trained graduate students.At the Ph.D. level they produced an average of 5academic faculty, 3 government scientists, 2consultants, 2 NGO staff, 2 students who choseother careers, and 1 industry scientist at the Ph.D.level. At the masters level, they advised an averageof 3 academic faculty, 4 government scientists, 3consultants, 1 science writer, 3 NGO staff, 2industry scientists, and 3 students who had pursuedother careers.

Institutional support. Academic participantswere asked whether the graduate program at theirinstitution provides training, support, and rewardsfor graduate students interested in pursuing non-academic career paths. More than half ofuniversities (60 percent) in which the respondentsworked were said to provide some support, andtwice as many institutions were reported to providegreat (26 percent) support compared to no support(13 percent) for non-academic careers.

Impediments to communicating ecologicalinformation. Nearly three-fourths (71 percent)of respondents felt that poor communication ofecological information to the public and confusionabout the distinction between environmentalism andecology were the main barriers. Lack ofcommunication, distrust, or misunderstandingbetween academic and nonacademic ecologists(38 percent) and between ecologists and scientistsfrom other disciplines (31 percent) were alsostrongly noted. Other impediments identified were

a lack of scientific understanding or interest by thepublic; concerns about compromising scientificobjectivity; academia’s lack of support for outreachand education; and an inability on the part ofecologists to connect ecological information directlyto issues that matter in peoples’ lives.

Ecological knowledge in decision-making.Respondents felt that ecological knowledge is notused more often and in more effective andmeaningful ways in management and decision-making because: there is a lack of political support(64 percent), or practitioners lack understandingof ecology (55 percent), funds (40 percent) or timeto incorporate ecology into their work (36percent). Respondents also felt that there wereproblems on the supply side of ecologicalinformation: recommendations by scientists are toovague or not achievable (60 percent) and theapplicable science has not been done (23 percent).Other views included quick and short-termdecision-making; distrust or hostility towardecological science; and the different goals ofecological science and management.

ESA initiatives. Many respondents expressedinterest in ESA’s expansion of its educationprograms to increase ecological and scientificliteracy among the public; forming workingrelationships with agencies and practitioners toimprove communication and access to information;fostering better relationships with local communities(for example, with cities that host the annualmeetings); expanding Issues in Ecology;broadening ESA’s outlook to address the viewsand interests of its non-academic members; andbetter training opportunities for ecologists tobecome involved in outreach and public education.

Section 4. International Outreach

Working internationally. Suggestions for howESA, its membership and other colleagues can helpfoster greater international collaboration in

53

ecological research were solicited from those whohave had experience working internationally,attending international meetings, or teachinginternational students. More international fundingopportunities were at the top of the list (58 percent),followed by better language training for Americans(47 percent), streamlined visa processes and morevisas for international researchers (39 percent),wider access (33 percent) and better infrastructure(33 percent) for international research. Participantscommented on various successful internationalcollaborations they had been involved in, such asan international Dragonfly Association, AmericanOrnithologists Union, NCEAS working groups,and the Fulbright program. Respondents said theysometimes (43 percent) or never (35 percent) workoutside the US. Fourteen percent said they oftenor always working internationally. Internationalcollaborations were more common: 6 percentresponded that they always work with scientistsfrom countries other than their own; 53 percentresponding that they sometimes do; 20 percentresponding that they often do; and 14 percentresponded that they never do.

International members of ESA. Members whowere not US citizens were asked why they joinedESA. The reasons given were that ESA is thepremier ecological society, and because of thejournals.

General comments on internationalizationand ESA initiatives. Many answers touched onthe importance of nonacademic programs in foreigncountries, particularly in the tropics, as importantareas for research and exchange of ideas. Globalquestions in ecology and marine ecosystems, andthe opportunities for international collaboration andoutreach, were seen as exciting. Many respondentsalso voiced their interest in ESA’s cooperating withother societies such as INTECOL, the BritishEcological Society, and others, especially in LatinAmerica and Canada, but without losing theAmerican focus of ESA.

Increasing International Membership of ESA.Of those who responded, 71 percent (88 percentUS citizens) thought that increasing internationalmembership in ESA was not important. More thanhalf of those who felt it is important thought thefollowing would be helpful: provide funds for foreignmembers to help offset the cost of attending ESAmeetings (54 percent); increase the internationalfocus of ESA journals (53 percent); and hold anannual symposium to highlight the work ofinternational ecologists. Holding annual meetingsin other countries (32 percent) and reducing costsof membership (39 percent) and of ESA journals(39 percent) were also supported. Other responsesranged from recalling that ESA is the EcologicalSociety of America and so should not stray farafield, to providing free or reduced cost journalsto foreign educational institutions and scientists, toholding joint meetings with other ecologicalsocieties.

Section 5. Building an Informed Citizenry andPublic Policy

Public outreach. Of 150 respondents, 67percent said they had taken part in public outreachactivities as volunteers, 44 percent in theirprofessional capacities, 43 percent through themedia, 18 percent as expert witnesses, 36 percentas science writers, 5 percent through art, and 4percent not at all. Other avenues of participation inpublic outreach were through K-12 education,activism, lobbying, and working with communitygroups. Asked to identify the top target groups foreducation and outreach programs by ESA, K-12teachers were overwhelmingly the top choice,followed by elected representatives, K-12 students,media, government agency staff, local communitygroups, undergraduates, private businesses, andNGOs.

ESA initiatives. A wide variety of potentialprojects and initiatives for ESA were identified thatmight lead to significant change in public

54

understanding and use of ecology. Place-basedlearning in K-12 schools was cited, as wereengaging local communities; improving teachereducation and resources; engaging with the privatesector; providing more web-based resources forcontent and links in ecology; and improving trainingopportunities for ESA members to communicatetheir information to the public.

Other initiatives outside ESA. Ideas for majorinitiatives that could be facilitated by ESA, throughmembers, other professional societies, or othergroups, were also solicited. Responses includedimproving access to ecological information for K-12 teachers and students; becoming more activein the media to explain ecology as a science distinctfrom environmentalism; or networking with otherprofessional societies to create a clearinghouse forinformation on natural resources and sciences tobetter inform policymakers.

Section 6. Conclusion

Rating of the 5 Visions. Respondents wereasked to rate the Vision areas in terms of the toppriority for fostering ecology over the next 20 years.Respondents overwhelmingly chose improvingpublic understanding of ecology (55 percent) asthe top priority, followed by cultural change in the

institutions where ecologists work (23 percent),increasing or developing tools and capacity forresearch (9 percent), increasing access toecological data (7 percent), and increasinginternational cooperation in ecological research (6percent).

General comments. Comments included the needfor: more money and institutional support forenvironmental science in general; a higher profilefor ecology; development of decision tools formanagers and policy makers; funding specificallyfor developing new ideas into research tools; andbroader cultural changes among ecologists to thinkof innovative approaches to ecological questions.

Feedback on the survey and on the EcologicalVisions effort. Respondents were supportive ofthe Ecological Visions process and wereencouraged that ESA is trying to advance ecologyin these different ways. Some respondents felt thatthe project so far was too focused on academicsand graduate institutions, to the exclusion ofpractitioners, undergraduate liberal arts programs,and students at all levels. The tensions betweentheoretical ecology and applied ecology surfacedrepeatedly, as well as those between large-scale,ecosystems science and more local, community orpopulation ecology.

55

ecological science and sustainability for a crowded planet · ecological science and sustainability...

Documents