Marine and coastal ecosystems provide important benefits and services to coastal communities across the globe, but assessing the diversity of social relationships with oceans can prove difficult for conservation scientists and practitioners. This presents barriers to incorporating social dimensions of marine ecosystems into ecosystem‐based planning processes, which can in turn affect the success of planning and management initiatives. Following a global assessment of social research and related planning practices in ocean environments, we present a step‐by‐step approach for natural resource planning practitioners to more systematically incorporate social data into ecosystem‐based ocean planning. Our approach includes three sequential steps: (1) develop a typology of ocean‐specific human uses that occur within the planning region of interest; (2) characterize the complexity of these uses, including the spatiotemporal variability, intensity, and diversity thereof, as well as associated conflicts and compatibility; and (3) integrate social and ecological information to assess trade‐offs necessary for successful implementation of ecosystem‐based ocean planning. We conclude by showing how systematic engagement of social data – together with ecological information – can create advantages for practitioners to improve planning and management outcomes.
With aquifers around the world stressed by over‐extraction, water managers are increasingly turning to managed aquifer recharge (MAR), directly replenishing groundwater resources through injection wells, recharge basins, or other approaches. While there has been progress in understanding the geological and infrastructure‐related considerations to make MAR more effective, critical evaluations of its institutional design and implementation are limited. This study assesses MAR projects, using a case study of projects proposed by groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) in California to comply with the state's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014; these projects will almost double the number of MAR projects in the United States. We draw on content analysis of groundwater sustainability plans that propose these projects. We first assess the types of recharge projects proposed and the stated aims of the projects, to assess when and why agencies are turning to MAR as a solution. We find that recharge basins are by far the most common approach, and that GSAs hope these basins will improve water table levels, reduce subsidence, and improve water quality. We then analyze potential barriers to project implementation and assess the projects' ability to achieve the stated goals. Primary concerns identified include a potential lack of available water, a potentially challenging legal framework, and minimal consideration of funding and cumulative land needs. To conclude, we discuss broader considerations for ensuring that MAR is an effective water management tool.
Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.
Today’s societal challenges, such as climate change and global pandemics, are increasingly complex and require collaboration across scientific disciplines to address. Scientific teams bring together individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise to work collaboratively on creating new knowledge to address these challenges. Within a scientific team, there is inherent diversity in disciplinary cultures and preferences for interpersonal collaboration. Such diversity contributes to the potential strength of the created knowledge but can also impede progress when teams struggle to collaborate productively. Facilitation is a professional practice-based form of interpersonal expertise that supports group members to do their best thinking. Although facilitation has been demonstrated to support group functioning in a wide range of contexts, its role in supporting scientific teams has been largely overlooked. This essay defines scientific facilitation as a form of interactional expertise and explains how facilitating scientific teams requires skills in managing interpersonal interactions as well as understanding how different types of disciplinary knowledge integrate in the creation of new knowledge. Next, it explains how this science facilitation expertise may be developed through metacognition. Finally, it provides examples of how scientific facilitation could be more widely incorporated into research by describing three pathways to expand the use of facilitation theory and techniques in collaborative scientific research: developing facilitation skills among scientists leading teams, using broadly trained facilitators, and using specialised science facilitators. The strengths and risks of each path are discussed, and criteria are suggested for selecting the right approach for a given team science project.