Making ecology relevant to decision making: the human‐centered, place‐based approach

In this second article of the new series on ecoliteracy, Carmen Cid and Richard Pouyat make the case for “place-based” research, especially for ecosystems dominated by human activities. The authors suggest ecologists should avoid the traditional approach of “scientist as observer” and become more integrated (socially) into the ecosystems they are investigating, for more effective environmental problem solving. Although ecologists have long conducted research within human-dominated landscapes, in the past, ecological research explicitly avoided recognizing humans as components of ecosystems (McDonnell and Pickett 1993; Miller and Hobbs 2002). This omission and the challenges of conducting transdisciplinary research (Pickett et al. 1999; Fry 2001) have resulted in an overall lack of understanding of human dominated ecosystems, leading, in turn, to the absence of an ecological foundation for informed decision making (ie an ecoliterate public). Indeed, even when ecological knowledge has been available to decision makers, it has not been used effectively in determining public policy or managing ecological systems (Pouyat et al. 2010; Sarewitz 2004). Since decision makers and the public are not typically ecoliterate (Cardelús and Middendorf 2013), ecologists must engage the public and help them to appreciate the value of incorporating ecological principles in developing, implementing, and interpreting policies to protect the environment. More recently, research in urban ecological systems has yielded insights into how ecologists can better integrate their research into decision making (Alberti 2008; McDonnell et al. 2009; Pickett et al. 2010). Even with these advances, research in human-dominated ecosystems continues to be a challenge due to the complexity introduced by the activity and behavior of people (Marzluff et al. 2008). The methodologies, conceptual frameworks, and mathematical models used by ecologists have largely avoided integrating the human impact on ecosystem interactions and functions (Groffman and Likens 1994). Consequently, ecologists have been using the traditional tools available to them. Modern “urban” ecologists refer to this approach as conducting ecology in the city (Collins et al. 2000), which has certainly led to a greater understanding of urban ecological systems, although not at a truly integrated level (Pickett et al. 2001, 2010). If ecologists are to predict the responses of human-dominated ecosystems to environmental and anthropogenic perturbations, they must understand the feedbacks between the human and biophysical components of ecosystems. In the case of urban ecological systems, ecologists refer to this level of engagement as ecology of the city (Collins et al. 2000). While more predictive power can come from an ecological understanding of the city (eg Pickett et al. 2010), ecologists continue to observe from outside rather than as part of the ecological system, much in the same way they conduct studies of other ecological systems. This traditional approach of “scientist as observer” can limit the opportunities for ecologists to affect decision making or feedbacks from within the system itself, whether that system occurs in or near urban or rural communities. When ecologists and their research are integral to the ecosystem they are investigating, however, we consider this level of involvement as the human-centered approach (sensu Kingsland 2005). We propose that this approach leads to more effective problem solving that is tied to societal needs, such that ecological science becomes part of the decision-making process. Moreover, a human-centered approach is more likely to occur when teams of scientists focus their research on a “place” that people inhabit or utilize for resources, such as fiber or water. Place-based research has been highly successful in the study of ecological systems, as seen in some of the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) and the US Forest Service's Experimental Forest and Rangeland sites. However, only rarely have these sites been located in places inhabited by people or dominated by human activity (eg LTER sites in Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix, Arizona; and the Kellogg Biological Station near Kalamazoo, Michigan). Place-based research in human-dominated ecosystems leads to the development of a social infrastructure with common environmental management goals, into which ecologists can fully integrate their investigations (Felson et al. 2013). Under such circumstances, ecologists can partner with public institutions or community groups to facilitate data collection, interpretation, and use to enable environmentally sound decision making by individuals and local government entities (Barthel 2006; Ernston et al. 2008). Place-based research in which ecologists have developed community partnerships for environmental stewardship has been successful in increasing the relevance of ecological research to environmental decision making. Besides the urban and agricultural LTER sites, another successful example is the Long Tom Watershed Council's work in Oregon's Willamette Valley. This agriculturally rich area generates complex environmental management problems related to water quality and threatened or endangered species (Flitcroft et al. 2009). Here, scientists are partnering with landowners in data collection, project planning, and ecological restoration, helping to structure educational outreach with the aim of answering community-generated questions and building trust. This place-based research model shows that protection and restoration of important habitats requires transdisciplinary interpretation of scientific findings and insights that are adapted to the local situation, and confirms how important it is that action plans be both socially and ecologically viable (sensu Berkes and Folke 1998; Pouyat et al. 2010). Other effective, community-engaging examples include various invasive species and nature-reserve management models developed in the US (Marzluff et al. 2001; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010), Australia (Hobbs and Mooney 1998), and Europe (Barthel et al. 2005; Tress et al. 2005). We therefore argue that ecologists can better integrate their research and knowledge into decision making by taking a research approach that is human centered; this often involves: (1) developing stewardship-focused partnerships through outreach and dialogue with community stakeholders and policy makers, and (2) engaging in place-based research, particularly in systems inhabited or utilized by humans. To incorporate the interdisciplinary team-building needed for human-centered ecological research and to make ecological work relevant to decision making, we need to train some ecologists to work at the interface of science, policy, and management, and to teach graduate students not only research skills but also communication, management, and “people” skills. Examples of effective education approaches that address these needs include interdisciplinary curricula that integrate the social, natural, and physical sciences while adopting the human-centered approach (eg School of Sustainability at Arizona State University); ecology courses with curricula tied to local environmental problems, including the development of “green” college campuses as labs (eg Grant 2003; Lowman 2010); and science communication courses that teach students how to convey ecological concepts, including the role that uncertainty plays in data interpretation (eg Lubchenco et al. 1998; Weiss 2003; Foote et al. 2009; Biggs et al. 2010; Lowman 2010). Ecology, as with other scientific disciplines, has encountered many cultural and institutional barriers in its integration with public policy (Pouyat 1999; Sarewitz 2004). Ecologists therefore also need to develop educational outreach programs that engage the diverse communities involved in and affected by policy development related to local environmental issues. For example, to maximize effective information delivery and access, ecologists can engage a diverse range of the public through partnerships with local religious institutions and non-governmental organizations (Hitzhusen 2011). Nationally, ecologists can work with media organizations that already promote public service announcements on current environmental issues (eg Hispanic Communications Network's radio affiliate network “La Red Hispana”, www.hcnmedia.com), and integrate accessible educational databases into large-scale environmental research projects (see National Ecological Observatory Network initiative, www.neoninc.org/about/ overview) that place local environmental issues into a national perspective. Ecologists can also take advantage of the guidelines provided by the Ecological Society of America's (ESA) Public Affairs Office for identifying and making effective use of opportunities to communicate ecological knowledge to the public (ESA 2011). Ecologists with experience in citizen-science projects have also generated guidelines for engaging diverse audiences in the appreciation of ecological research and for effective use of public assistance in collecting data for solving community-relevant environmental problems (Dickinson et al. 2012; Pandya 2012). Several authors have addressed ways in which ecologists can engage in the policy-making process (Pouyat 1999; Airame 2003; Leidner 2009; Nelson and Vucetich 2009), while others have recommended caution because ecologists risk being perceived as environmental advocates rather than as scientists who objectively conduct ecological research (Alpert and Keller 2003; Laurenroth 2003). Whatever the case, conceptual frameworks for facilitating the effective use of scientific knowledge in policy and decision making suggest that we need to improve our delivery (translation and mediation) of ecological knowledge (Cash et al. 2003), be actively involved in managing the “supply and demand” of such knowledge (Sarewitz and Pielke 2007), and “embed” ecologists within the institutions that make or implement policy (Pouyat 2007). We suggest that place-based research in any human-dominated ecosystem enables or facilitates these practices while at the same time minimizing the confusion or conflict over whether an ecologist is advocating for the environment or for science (Pouyat et al. 2010). While professional organizations like ESA can help in making policy-relevant ecological research available and understandable, it will take collaborative partnerships among local groups and the ecological, business, and education communities to truly realize the benefits of the human-centered approach. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.