Many citizen science projects are place-based - built on in-person participation and motivated by local conservation. When done thoughtfully, this approach to citizen science can transform humans and their environment. Despite such possibilities, many projects struggle to meet decision-maker needs, generate useful data to inform decisions, and improve social-ecological resilience. Here, we define leveraging the ‘power of place’ in citizen science, and posit that doing this improves conservation decision making, increases participation, and improves community resilience. First, we explore ‘place’ and identify five place dimensions: social-ecological, narrative and name-based, knowledge-based, emotional and affective, and performative. We then thematically analyze 134 case studies drawn from CitSci.org (n=39), The Stewardship Network New England (TSN-NE; n=39), and Earthwatch (n=56) regarding: (1) use of place dimensions in materials (as one indication of leveraging the power of place), (2) intent for use of data in decision-making, and (3) evidence of such use. We find that 89% of projects intend for data to be used, 46% demonstrate no evidence of use, and 54% provide some evidence of use. Moreover, projects used in decision making leverage more (t=−4.8, df=117; p<0.001) place dimensions (x̅=3.0; s=1.4) than those not used in decision making (x̅=1.8; s=1.2). Further, a Principal Components Analysis identifies three related components (aesthetic, narrative and name-based, and social-ecological). Given these findings, we present a framework for leveraging place in citizen science projects and platforms, and recommend approaches to better impart intended outcomes. We discuss place in citizen science related to relevance, participation, resilience, and scalability and conclude that effective decision making as a means towards more resilient and sustainable communities can be strengthened by leveraging the power of place in citizen science

1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice.2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence‐informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional.3. Since 2014, thinking around the ‘research–implementation gap’ has progressed. The term ‘gap’ has been replaced by language around the dynamic ‘spaces’ between research and action, representing a shift in thinking around what it takes to better align research and practice.4. In 2019, we ran a follow‐up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions.5. Here, we report on the outcomes of the 2019 workshop, reflect on what has changed over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice.

Ecosystem management and governance of cross-scale dependent systems require integrating knowledge about ecological connectivity in its multiple forms and scales. Although scientists, managers, and policymakers are increasingly recognizing the importance of connectivity, governmental organizations may not be currently equipped to manage ecosystems with strong cross-boundary dependencies. Managing the different aspects of connectivity requires building social connectivity to increase the flow of information, as well as the capacity to coordinate planning, funding, and actions among both formal and informal governance bodies. We use estuaries in particular the San Francisco Estuary, in California, in the United States, as examples of cross-scale dependent systems affected by many intertwined aspects of connectivity. We describe the different types of estuarine connectivity observed in both natural and human-affected states and discuss the human dimensions of restoring beneficial physical and ecological processes. Finally, we provide recommendations for policy, practice, and research on how to restore functional connectivity to estuaries.

Collaborative and community-based approaches to conservation and natural resource management often utilize maps that designate particular areas as being high priorities for conservation. These maps are used in stakeholder workshops and/or public discourse, but have often been highly contentious and counterproductive. We propose that quantifying and visualizing some of the uncertainty involved in making such maps could decrease their potential for causing conflict, thereby facilitating discourse and eventually, conservation action. We propose that an extra bonus could be attained by mapping the effects of missing or sparse input data regarding landowner “willingness to conserve” (given fair market compensation). The primary contributions of this action research are in the development of the propositions and in their implementation using a stochastic approach (Monte Carlo simulation). Preliminary assessment of the propositions occurred, but further research is needed to more formally evaluate them. Some practical suggestions and additional research considerations are provided.