Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley

Dr. Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2013 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SJStephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
PMPeter B McIntyre
Peter B McIntyre
MDMatthew Diebel
Matthew Diebel
PDPatrick J Doran
Patrick J Doran
DIDana M Infante
Dana M Infante
JAJ David Allan
J David Allan
A key challenge in aquatic restoration efforts is documenting locations where ecological connectivity is disrupted in water bodies that are dammed or crossed by roads (road crossings). To prioritize actions aimed at restoring connectivity, we argue that there is a need for systematic inventories of these potential barriers at regional and national scales. Here, we address this limitation for the North American Great Lakes basin by compiling the best available spatial data on the locations of dams and road crossings. Our spatial database documents 38 times as many road crossings as dams in the Great Lakes basin, and case studies indicate that, on average, only 36% of road crossings in the area are fully passable to fish. It is therefore essential that decision makers account for both road crossings and dams when attempting to restore aquatic ecosystem connectivity. Given that road crossing structures are commonly upgraded as part of road maintenance, many opportunities exist to restore connections within aquatic ecosystems at minimal added cost by ensuring upgrade designs permit water flow and the passage of fish and other organisms. Our findings highlight the necessity for improved dam and road crossing inventories that traverse political boundaries to facilitate the restoration of aquatic ecosystem connectivity from local to global scales.

1 January 2016 in Ecology and Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KMKatie Moon
Katie Moon
TBTom D. Brewer
Tom D. Brewer
SJStephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
Vanessa M. AdamsVanessa M. Adams
Vanessa M. Adams
DBDeborah Blackman
Deborah Blackman
Moon, K., T. D. Brewer, S. R. Januchowski-Hartley, V. M. Adams, and D. A. Blackman. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21(3):17.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08663-210317

24 November 2010 in Fish and Fisheries
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SFSimon Foale
Simon Foale
PCPhilippa Cohen
Philippa Cohen
SJStephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley
AWAmelia Wenger
Amelia Wenger
MMMartha Macintyre
Martha Macintyre

8 October 2024 in Scientific Data
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BLBernhard Lehner
Bernhard Lehner
PBPenny Beames
Penny Beames
MMMark Mulligan
Mark Mulligan
CZChristiane Zarfl
Christiane Zarfl
LFLUCA DE FELICE
LUCA DE FELICE
JHJonathan Higgins
Jonathan Higgins
There are millions of river barriers worldwide, ranging from wooden locks to concrete dams, many of which form associated impoundments to store water in small ponds or large reservoirs. Besides their benefits, there is growing recognition of important environmental and social trade-offs related to these artificial structures. However, global datasets describing their characteristics and geographical distribution are often biased towards particular regions or specific applications, such as hydropower dams affecting fish migration, and are thus not globally consistent. Here, we present a new river barrier and reservoir database developed by the Global Dam Watch (GDW) consortium that integrates, harmonizes, and augments existing global datasets to support large-scale analyses. Data curation involved extensive quality control processes to create a single, globally consistent data repository of instream barriers and reservoirs that are co-registered to a digital river network. Version 1.0 of the GDW database contains 41,145 barrier locations and 35,295 associated reservoir polygons representing a cumulative storage capacity of 7,420 km3 and an artificial terrestrial surface water area of 304,600 km2.

8 January 2019 in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KMKatie Moon
Katie Moon
DBDeborah A. Blackman
Deborah A. Blackman
Vanessa M. AdamsVanessa M. Adams
Vanessa M. Adams
RCRebecca Colvin
Rebecca Colvin
FDFederico Davila
Federico Davila
CWCarina Wyborn
Carina Wyborn
The Special Feature led by Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, and Geneletti (Methods Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7–9, 2018) sought to highlight the importance of “qualitative methods” for conservation. The intention is welcome, and the collection makes many important contributions. Yet, the articles presented a limited perspective on the field, with a focus on objectivist and instrumental methods, omitting discussion of some broader philosophical and methodological considerations crucial to social science research. Consequently, the Special Feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and, potentially, reducing its quality and usefulness. In this article, we seek to build on the strengths of the articles of the Special Feature by drawing in a discussion on social science research philosophy, methodology, and methods. We start with a brief discussion on the value of thinking about data as being qualitative (i.e., text, image, or numeric) or quantitative (i.e., numeric), not methods or research. Thinking about methods as qualitative can obscure many important aspects of research design by implying that “qualitative methods” somehow embody a particular set of assumptions or principles. Researchers can bring similar, or very different, sets of assumptions to their research design, irrespective of whether they collect qualitative or quantitative data. We clarify broad concepts, including philosophy, methodology, and methods, explaining their role in social science research design. Doing so provides us with an opportunity to examine some of the terms used across the articles of the Special Feature (e.g., bias), revealing that they are used in ways that could be interpreted as being inconsistent with their use in a number of applications of social science. We provide worked examples of how social science research can be designed to collect qualitative data that not only understands decision‐making processes, but also the unique social–ecological contexts in which it takes place. These examples demonstrate the importance of coherence between philosophy, methodology, and methods in research design, and the importance of reflexivity throughout the research process. We conclude with encouragement for conservation social scientists to explore a wider range of qualitative research approaches, providing guidance for the selection and application of social science methods for ecology and conservation.

4 July 2018 in Ecography
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RHRenato Henriques‐Silva
Renato Henriques‐Silva
MLMaxime Logez
Maxime Logez
NRNathalie Reynaud
Nathalie Reynaud
PTPablo A. Tedesco
Pablo A. Tedesco
SBSebastien Brosse
Sebastien Brosse
CAChristine Argillier
Christine Argillier