© 2017 The Authors The growing number of artificial structures in estuarine, coastal and marine environments is causing “ocean sprawl”. Artificial structures do not only modify marine and coastal ecosystems at the sites of their placement, but may also produce larger-scale impacts through their alteration of ecological connectivity - the movement of organisms, materials and energy between habitat units within seascapes. Despite the growing awareness of the capacity of ocean sprawl to influence ecological connectivity, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how artificial structures modify ecological connectivity in near- and off-shore environments, and when and where their effects on connectivity are greatest. We review the mechanisms by which ocean sprawl may modify ecological connectivity, including trophic connectivity associated with the flow of nutrients and resources. We also review demonstrated, inferred and likely ecological impacts of such changes to connectivity, at scales from genes to ecosystems, and potential strategies of management for mitigating these effects. Ocean sprawl may alter connectivity by: (1) creating barriers to the movement of some organisms and resources - by adding physical barriers or by modifying and fragmenting habitats; (2) introducing new structural material that acts as a conduit for the movement of other organisms or resources across the landscape; and (3) altering trophic connectivity. Changes to connectivity may, in turn, influence the genetic structure and size of populations, the distribution of species, and community structure and ecological functioning. Two main approaches to the assessment of ecological connectivity have been taken: (1) measurement of structural connectivity - the configuration of the landscape and habitat patches and their dynamics; and (2) measurement of functional connectivity - the response of organisms or particles to the landscape. Our review reveals the paucity of studies directly addressing the effects of artificial structures on ecological connectivity in the marine environment, particularly at large spatial and temporal scales. With the ongoing development of estuarine and marine environments, there is a pressing need for additional studies that quantify the effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity. Understanding the mechanisms by which structures modify connectivity is essential if marine spatial planning and eco-engineering are to be effectively utilised to minimise impacts

The assessment of links between ecology and physical habitat has become a major issue in river research and management. Key drivers include concerns about the conservation implications of human modifications (e.g. abstraction, climate change) and the explicit need to understand the ecological importance of hydromorphology as prescribed by the EU's Water Framework Directive. Efforts are focusing on the need to develop ‘eco‐hydromorphology’ at the interface between ecology, hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Here, the scope of this emerging field is defined, some research and development issues are suggested, and a path for development is sketched out. In the short term, major research priorities are to use existing literature or data better to identify patterns among organisms, ecological functions and river hydromorphological character. Another early priority is to identify model systems or organisms to act as research foci. In the medium term, the investigation of pattern–processes linkages, spatial structuring, scaling relationships and system dynamics will advance mechanistic understanding. The effects of climate change, abstraction and river regulation, eco‐hydromorphic resistance/resilience, and responses to environmental disturbances are likely to be management priorities. Large‐scale catchment projects, in both rural and urban locations, should be promoted to concentrate collaborative efforts, to attract financial support and to raise the profile of eco‐hydromorphology. Eco‐hydromorphological expertise is currently fragmented across the main contributory disciplines (ecology, hydrology, geomorphology, flood risk management, civil engineering), potentially restricting research and development. This is paradoxical given the shared vision across these fields for effective river management based on good science with social impact. A range of approaches is advocated to build sufficient, integrated capacity that will deliver science of real management value over the coming decades. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The concept of transformation in relation to climate and other global change is increasingly receiving attention. The concept provides important opportunities to help examine how rapid and fundamental change to address contemporary global challenges can be facilitated. This paper contributes to discussions about transformation by providing a social science, arts and humanities perspective to open up discussion and set out a research agenda about what it means to transform and the dimensions, limitations and possibilities for transformation. Key focal areas include: (1) change theories; (2) knowing whether transformation has occurred or is occurring; (3) knowledge production and use; (4) governance; (5) how dimensions of social justice inform transformation; (6) the limits of human nature; (7) the role of the utopian impulse; (8) working with the present to create new futures; and (9) human consciousness. In addition to presenting a set of research questions around these themes the paper highlights that much deeper engagement with complex social processes is required; that there are vast opportunities for social science, humanities and the arts to engage more directly with the climate challenge; that there is a need for a massive upscaling of efforts to understand and shape desired forms of change; and that, in addition to helping answer important questions about how to facilitate change, a key role of the social sciences, humanities and the arts in addressing climate change is to critique current societal patterns and to open up new thinking. Through such critique and by being more explicit about what is meant by transformation, greater opportunities will be provided for opening up a dialogue about change, possible futures and about what it means to re-shape the way in which people live.