SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONTROVERSIES The role of ...cels.uri.edu/docslink/whl/Journals/Osmond_et_al... · SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONTROVERSIES The role of interface organizations

306

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

Scientific research can provide important and timelyinsights into environmental issues, but scientists face

many personal and institutional challenges to effectivelysynthesize and transmit their findings to relevant stake-holders. In this paper, we address how “interface” or“boundary” organizations – organizations created to fosterthe use of science knowledge in environmental policymaking and environmental management, as well as toencourage changes in behavior, further learning, inquiry,

discovery, or enjoyment – can help scientists improveand facilitate effective communication and the applica-tion of scientific information (Gieryn 1999). Interfaceorganizations are synergistic and operate across a range ofscales, purposes, and intensities of information flowbetween scientists and audiences.

Considerable attention has focused on how to involvescientists in the decision-making process regarding nat-ural resource management issues related to their area ofexpertise (Andersson 2004; Roth et al. 2004; Rinaudoand Garin 2005; Bacic et al. 2006; Olsson and Andersson2007). These efforts have resulted in scientific input toenvironmental issues, including ecosystem management(Meffe et al. 2002), adaptive collaborative management(Buck et al. 2001; Colfer 2005), and integrated watershedmanagement (Jeffrey and Gearey 2006). A common ele-ment of many of these approaches is the use of an organi-zation or group to manage and facilitate the interactionbetween the scientists and the “users” or “managers” of anatural resource. Cash et al. (2003) identified key func-tions of successful “boundary management” organiza-tions. These functions include communication, transla-tion, and mediation (convening groups, as well asresolving differences). Successful efforts are characterizedby having clear lines of responsibility and accountabilityon both sides of the boundary, and by providing a forumin which information can be co-produced by scientistsand information users.

Interface organizations typically:(1) Engage: seeking out scientists with important findings

and then building or filling a demand for theirinsights among different communities and for variousniches, contexts, and scales. The organization usuallyserves as a convener.

SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONTROVERSIES

The role of interface organizations in sciencecommunication and understanding Deanna L Osmond1, Nalini M Nadkarni2, Charles T Driscoll3, Elaine Andrews4, Arthur J Gold5,Shorna R Broussard Allred6, Alan R Berkowitz7, Michael W Klemens7, Terry L Loecke7, Mary Ann McGarry8,Kirsten Schwarz7,9, Mary L Washington10, and Peter M Groffman7*

“Interface” organizations are groups created to foster the use of science in environmental policy, manage-ment, and education. Here we compare interface organizations that differ in spatial scale, modes of operation,and intended audience to illustrate their diversity and importance in promoting the application of science toenvironmental issues. There has been exciting recent growth in the nature and extent of activities by interfaceorganizations and in new methods for science communication and engagement. These developments can helpscientists – who face personal and institutional challenges when attempting to convey the results of theirresearch to various audiences – interact with society on specific issues in specific places, and with a wide rangeof non-traditional audiences. The ongoing mission for these organizations should be to move beyond simplyincreasing awareness of environmental problems to the creation of solutions that result in genuine environ-mental improvements.

Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8(6): 306–313, doi:10.1890/090145

In a nutshell:• “Interface” organizations – groups created to foster the use of

science knowledge in environmental policy making and envi-ronmental management – play a fundamental role in the flowof information from science to society

• Interface activities that focus on specific issues in specific placesand present synthesized and translated scientific findingsdirectly to policy makers are most effective

• Interface organizations provide opportunities for scientists tointeract with non-traditional audiences, such as religiousgroups, urban youth, and prisoners

1Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,NC; 2The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA; 3Department of Civiland Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY;4Environmental Resources Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI; 5Department of Natural Resources Science, University of RhodeIsland, Kingston, RI; 6Department of Natural Resources, Cornell Uni-versity, Ithaca, NY; 7Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY*([email protected]); 8Department of Environmental Scienceand Policy, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH; 9Department ofEcology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, NewBrunswick, NJ; 10Parks & People Foundation, Baltimore, MD

DL Osmond et al. The role of interface organizations

307

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

(2) Exchange: targeting key audiences and encouraginglocal research, participatory learning, and sociallearning, ie the growing capacity of a social networkto develop and perform collective actions (Craps2003; Craps and Maurel 2003; Craps and Prins 2004;Craps et al. 2004; Maurel et al. 2007).

(3) Collaborate: often working with partners and partner-ship organizations, they provide opportunities forinteraction between scientists and information users,and frequently provide feedback that can identifygaps in communication strategies and the state of thescience.

(4) Explain: facilitating the presentation of credible sci-entific information to inform policy or managementstrategies; presenting options; and “translating” sci-ence information so that it is more user-friendly.

(5) Reward: providing benefits to both sides of the inter-face. They direct, motivate, and enable inquiry, sci-ence synthesis, and assessment. They also educate sci-entists and science information users about oneanother’s knowledge, interests, needs, concerns, andlearning styles.

In this paper, we use three case studies from the US toillustrate a spectrum of interface organizations that differin spatial scale, methods of operation, and intended audi-ences. Although each organization is tailored to its audi-ence and desired outcomes, all provide a version of an“integrated knowledge system” that “systematically moti-vates and harnesses relevant research and developmentwork in support of problem-solving and decision-makingactivities” (Cash et al. 2003). Each organization offers adistinct perspective and creative strategies, but all share acommon framework for how to be effective, with a focuson the values of the perceived audience. The objective ofthis comparative analysis is to reveal the diversity andimportance of interface organizations for promoting theuse of science in environmental issues.

n Case study 1: Cooperative Extension in the NeuseRiver Basin, North Carolina

Cooperative Extension – a system of scientists and educa-tors coordinated by US Land Grant colleges that main-tains a presence in every US state and territory(McCarthy 2009) – is a classic example of a boundaryorganization that works closely with stakeholders usingscience-based information to inform decision-makingand environmental practices. Land Grant colleges wereestablished by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, toincrease agricultural productivity and efficiency throughresearch and education. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914established the Cooperative Extension Service as part ofthe Land Grant system. Funded by federal, state, andcounty governments, the Extension system offers educa-tion beyond the borders of the Land Grant college or uni-versity; county Extension educators work with localclientele, including youth and non-agricultural popula-

tions. Increasingly, Extension specialists and agents workwith state and county officials.

A major Cooperative Extension effort took place inNorth Carolina’s (NC’s) Neuse River Basin and Estuary,which have experienced harmful algae blooms and fishkills over the past three decades. This initiative resultedin changes to state regulations that mandated a 30%decrease in annual nitrogen (N) loading to the estuaryfrom all sources, including agriculture, by 2003.Agricultural land uses throughout the Neuse River Basinare estimated to contribute more than half of the total Nload to the estuary, meaning that farmers are responsiblefor implementing best-management practices to decreasethe agricultural export of N to the estuary by over 1 mil-lion pounds (> 453 000 kg) annually. The new regula-tions – known as the Neuse Rules – were in part devel-oped during discussions with scientists at North CarolinaState University (NCSU) and the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). The Neuse Rules statethat any individual who applies nutrients to 50 acres(~20 ha) or more must either use a certified nutrientmanagement plan or attend nutrient management train-ing conducted by the NC Cooperative Extension. Inaddition, the rules state that a N tracking and accountingtool for agricultural activities has to be designed and com-puterized, but at the time, no agency had been designatedto lead the development of this tool.

The Neuse Education Team, a group of CooperativeExtension specialists and agents, was formed by the NCstate legislature to address deteriorating ecological condi-tions in the Neuse River. This team, based at NCSU, ini-tiated a comprehensive education program for the NeuseRiver Basin in 1996 to promote adoption of water-qualityprotection measures in agricultural and urban areas. Thegoal of the Neuse Education Team was to inform citizens,agencies, officials, and industry about: (1) the NeuseRiver Basin; (2) the environmental challenges thatall citizens within the watershed face together; and (3)the research and education efforts that NCSU andthe NC Cooperative Extension Service were implement-ing to address water-quality problems in the Basin(www.neuse.ncsu.edu/).

Because of the targeted funding for the NeuseEducation Team and specific duties associated with theNC Cooperative Extension laid out in the Neuse Rules,Extension specialists were expected to work with NCDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources(NCDENR) personnel to improve the use of scientificinformation in environmental decision making. Twoexamples, a nutrient management training program andthe application of a N tracking tool, serve to illustratethis partnership.

The first example illustrates the strengths and limita-tions of Cooperative Extension educational programs.Extension specialists in the Soil Science Department atNCSU developed a comprehensive nutrient manage-ment training program targeted toward farmers and

The role of interface organizations DL Osmond et al.

308


agribusiness professionals. Training topics were deter-mined in collaboration with a stakeholder group withagricultural and environmental interests. Pre-tested train-ing materials were distributed to 35 county Extensionagents, who trained over 2000 farmers, lawn care person-nel, and container nursery professionals over a 2-yearperiod in the Neuse River Basin. During this training,evaluations indicated that there was an improvement inunderstanding of nutrient management and pollutionissues. However, a field-based survey suggested that train-ing did not affect nutrient management implementationor N delivery to the estuary (Figure 1), which has ledNCDENR officials to reconsider the value of nutrientmanagement training as they promulgate future riverbasin rules.

The second example illustrates how CooperativeExtensions can facilitate the use of state-of-the-art sci-ence in management and policy. Farmers in the NeuseRiver Basin were required to use mandated conservationpractices or to participate in a process using a locally pro-duced N tracking tool to demonstrate a 30% decrease inN loading. It was critical that this tool be science-basedin order to ensure that farmers’ efforts were accounted for,should the tool have to be defended legally. Neither theenvironmental regulators (NCDENR) nor the USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural ResourcesConservation Service had the expertise to develop such atool. The Neuse Education Team therefore designed anddeveloped the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet(NLEW) to track nutrient management implementationand N controls (Osmond et al. 2001a, b), in associationwith state and federal personnel. Development of theNLEW tool prompted participant farmers to confrontresearch deficits that were spotted by NCDENR person-

nel, which spurred additional research projects. Forexample, results from ongoing riparian buffer researchinspired change in the N control credit associated withthe use of buffer zones in the NLEW (Smith et al. 2006).

These examples show the strengths and limitations ofCooperative Extension for addressing nutrient problemsassociated with agriculture. The NC CooperativeExtension and NCSU have a long tradition of workingwith state officials and agencies in North Carolina.Extension faculty serve on many government committeesand stakeholder groups, where they are recognized fortheir impartial, science-based information. Beyond pro-viding education for the citizens of North Carolina,Extension faculty can affect how environmental regula-tions are written and implemented by providing science-based research and outreach efforts. The experience withthe Neuse Rules has demonstrated the importance ofclose partnerships between scientists and environmentalpolicy makers in producing defendable, science-basedrules and regulations.

However, problems remain. The field-based survey sug-gested that the nutrient training had not made a differ-ence in nutrient management implementation and thatCooperative Extension efforts informed but did not nec-essarily motivate changes in attitudes or behavior.Farmers fail to implement nutrient management plans for

Figure 1. (a) One of four Neuse River Basin demonstrationfarms that implemented nitrogen-reducing conservation practices;(b) producer training on riparian buffer management in the NeuseRiver Basin; and (c) estimated total nitrogen (TN) loading at FortBarnwell Ambient Monitoring Station (1991–2006). Source:North Carolina Department of Environment and NaturalResources–Division of Water Quality, July 2009 Neuse RiverBasinwide Water Quality Plan. Kinston flow = river flowmeasured at Kinston. cfs = cubic feet per second.

(a) (b)

(c)TN loadingKinston flowFort Barnwell flow

14 x 106

12 x 106

10 x 106

8 x 106

6 x 106

4 x 106

2 x 106

0

Tota

l nitr

og

en lo

adin

g (l

bs

yr–1

)at

Fo

rt B

arnw

ell

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Yearly mean flo

w rate (cfs)

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Baseline period Year Post-implementationperiod


309


multiple reasons: they obtain information frommany sources (including fertilizer dealers)about nutrient management; they have timeconstraints; they are risk averse; and they aresubject to numerous financial incentives andpressures. Although the Neuse programinvolves a mix of voluntary and regulatory pro-visions, the regulatory aspect of the programhas not been enforced and relies, like mostagricultural environmental performance pro-grams, on voluntary compliance. CooperativeExtension-style interface activities are effec-tive in providing scientific information onenvironment issues for policy makers and forthe general public. However, effecting changesin environmental quality will require a con-certed multitrack effort that involves educa-tion, regulation, and incentives.

n Case study 2: the Hubbard BrookScience-Links program

Individual scientists face many impedimentswhen communicating their results or themanagement implications thereof to policymakers, the media, or the general public. TheScience-Links program associated with the LongTerm Ecological Research program at NewHampshire’s Hubbard Brook ExperimentalForest serves as an interface organization forregional scientists interested in environmentalscience communication. The Hubbard BrookEcosystem Study (HBES) involves researchersfrom a range of disciplines (Bormann andLikens 1979; Likens and Bormann 1995;Groffman et al. 2004) and examines the north-ern hardwood forest ecosystem and its responseto disturbance(s). HBES research was influential in iden-tifying acid rain in North America and played an im-portant role in the implementation of laws to combatthis problem.

The Science-Links program was developed by theHubbard Brook Research Foundation (HBRF), whichwas established by the HBES to manage site housing andlaboratory facilities, and to coordinate education and out-reach programs. The goal of the Science-Links program isto synthesize environmental scientific research con-ducted as part of the HBES and elsewhere in the north-eastern US and the Northern Forest region and commu-nicate this information to objectively inform andadvance public policy, conservation, and science educa-tion. A series of Science-Links projects have been com-pleted, including ones on acid rain (Driscoll et al. 2001;Figure 2), nitrogen pollution (Driscoll et al. 2003), mer-cury contamination (Driscoll et al. 2007), and long-termmonitoring (Lovett et al. 2007). One current projectfocuses on local-scale carbon management, and another

that is just beginning will concentrate on conservationissues related to Neotropical migratory birds. The HBRFcarries out fundraising for the Science-Links program, andeach project is a major undertaking, requiring 2–4 yearsof research activity with budgets ranging from $200 000to $400 000.

Science Links focuses on projects that are relevant topolicy and/or management. Project teams work togetherto develop a consensus on the “state of the science” andto find a balance between remaining true to the scientificcomplexity of the problem and making the science acces-sible to general audiences. Projects are designed toinform, but not to advocate. The project teams analyze,present, and discuss the various outcomes expected tooccur in response to the range of relevant policy optionsthat are being considered. Incentives, such as stipendsand media training, are provided to encourage scientistparticipation. The Science-Links program functions as aninterface organization because it helps the scientists todevelop a consensus synthesis document on an environ-

Figure 2. The Science-Links program of the Hubbard Brook ResearchFoundation has helped to increase understanding of the causes and effects of acidrain and helped inform air-quality management in the US. These figures arefrom a Science-Links publication that aims to both clarify concepts and presentthe scientific foundations of this complex issue. From Driscoll et al. (2001).

Long-term trends in stream chemistry

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

5.1

5.0

4.9

4.8

160

140

120

100

80

145135125115105958575

pH

Bas

e ca

tions

(eq

L–1

)S

ulfa

te (e

q L

–1)

Long-term trends in stream sulfate andbase cation concentrations and pH atthe HBEF from 1963–1994.The solid lines indicate statistically sig-nificant trends.


310


mental issue; facilitates the communication of these find-ings to policy makers, natural resource managers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, scienceeducators, and the public; and promotes exchanges anddialogue about the issue of concern between the projectteam and all the stakeholders.

Each project within the Science-Links program isdivided into three phases. In the organizational phase,the subject of the project is identified; a team of expertsrepresenting a range of relevant scientific disciplines isassembled; and a group of policy/natural resource man-agement advisors is selected to help lead and provideadvice about the project. This is followed by the syn-thesis phase, during which the project team meets todiscuss the scope of the project; develops an outline fora scientific synthesis article (to be submitted for consid-eration to a peer-reviewed journal); and identifies dataanalysis and modeling activities for that paper. Theteam then drafts the article and consults with the pro-ject advisors about it. The draft article is then edited,revised, and ultimately submitted to the selected jour-nal for review. The third phase – outreach – is initiatedearly in the project, through the development of a writ-ten communication plan and the creation and circula-tion of a “fact sheet” that introduces the project to var-ious audiences and increases awareness of the relatedscience. A general-audience “translation report” isdrafted from the scientific synthesis article. Staffers inthe US Congress are the primary audience for thisreport, with secondary audiences including local andregional natural resource managers, relevant NGOs,and educational organizations. The general-audiencereports include conceptual diagrams drawn by a graphicartist, which are visually appealing and greatly enhanceunderstanding of the scientific information in the doc-uments. In addition to the peer-reviewed journal arti-cles and the general-audience reports, output activitiesfor Science-Links projects include Congressional brief-ings, Congressional testimony, and federal and stateagency briefings. Projects have also involved pressconferences held at the National Press Club inWashington, DC, and numerous interviews that haveresulted in more than 450 media citations referring tothese projects.

There are several features that make the Science-Linksprogram an effective interface organization for sciencecommunication. Although Science Links is a formal out-reach program of the HBRF, it is a relatively small andflexible program, enabling interested individuals andgroups to address different issues and apply innovativeapproaches in science communication. While ScienceLinks is a science-oriented organization, its goal is to facil-itate and manage direct interactions with stakeholdergroups, primarily policy makers and natural resourcemanagers, as well as conservation and educational groups,industry, the media, and environmental NGOs. Thesedirect interactions have greatly facilitated the use of the

latest scientific findings in formal discussions of policiesand laws to address topics in environmental science thatare of critical importance to the northeastern US.

n Case study 3: the International Canopy Network

When scientists disseminate their research to the public,their customary audience has almost always been com-posed of those already interested in and knowledgeableabout science – the scientifically “active/aware” (Miller2004; Priest 2009), who are often the most receptive andshare common vocabularies and values with the scien-tists. This, however, excludes a large segment of societythat may have less interest in and/or knowledge about sci-ence and environmental issues. Although many scientistsare capable of conveying the excitement and importanceof their work, most lack experience in communicatingwith non-traditional public audiences.

The International Canopy Network (ICAN;http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/ican/ican/), incollaboration with other institutions, functions as aninterface organization that directly links scientists to gen-eral audiences. Differing somewhat from the CooperativeExtension and Science-Links programs, the ICAN wasfounded by scientists and not by interface specialists. Thecentral concept of the ICAN is that scientificallyunaware individuals will be open to learning about sci-ence if scientists can link their research with activitiesthat excite their audiences, eg their spiritual, profes-sional, and recreational activities (Figure 3). Threeexamples from the field of forest science that can beextended to other ecological fields are presented in thenext sections.

Faith-based communities

Nadkarni (2007) explored the possibility of linking eco-logical and religious values, using formal religious groupsas interface organizations, by giving over 30 “sermons” inplaces of worship. She first identified the value of trees asdescribed in their respective holy scriptures (eg Bible,Koran, Talmud) and then presented her findings to con-gregations of many faiths (Nadkarni 2007). This resultedin open communication about the overall value of treesand forests and inspired tree-planting activities organizedby individual congregations.

At-risk youth

Whiteman and Nadkarni (2009) described the SoundScience program, a project designed to help scientistscreate positive experiences in ecology for urban youth –a group characterized by the greatest gaps in perfor-mance on achievement tests in science and mathemat-ics (NSB 2002) – by engaging a professional rap singerto join field trips to forested areas. In collaboration withthe interface organization Gear Up, a US Department of


311


Education-funded program that pro-motes college awareness, scientistsrecruited 40 at-risk (of dropping outof school) middle-school youth. Theoutcome of the week-long interac-tions in the field and in the soundstudios at The Evergreen StateCollege (in Olympia, Washington)was a compact disc of songs createdby the students about the forest,which they distributed to family andfriends. These efforts also inspiredgraffiti artists to paint a vibrant muraldepicting forest canopies, which nowhangs in the third-floor hallway ofthe Environmental Studies buildingat The Evergreen State College,showcased side by side with facultyand student posters that were createdfor scientific meetings.

Science, scientists, and inmates

Working with the Washington StateDepartment of Corrections, scien-tists developed the SustainablePrisons Project to connect scientists’research and sustainability projectswith incarcerated individuals (Nad-karni 2006; Ulrich and Nadkarni2009). Inmates and researchers work-ed collaboratively to learn how togrow moss for the horticulture tradein order to decrease the collection ofwild moss from old-growth forests, breed the Oregonspotted frog (Rana pretiosa) – a candidate for listingunder the US Endangered Species Act – to augmentdeclining wild populations, and grow endangeredprairie plants for restoration projects. In addition, aseries of lectures on scientific issues by researchers fromvarious fields was introduced. Funding in 2009–2010from the Department of Corrections has expanded thiswork to four prisons in Washington State.

From these experiences, five lessons about scientist-mediated dissemination with interface organizations haveemerged:

(1) In non-scientific settings, non-scientists are amena-ble to contact with researchers (eg clergy welcomedscientists, who were not of their faith, to theirchurches).

(2) Non-scientists have their own well-developed per-sonal and professional networks, and have the capac-ity to link scientists with those networks (eg artistsintroduced scientists to other artists).

(3) Individuals from one non-scientist group may “leap-frog” and influence individuals in other groups (eg a

rap singer inspired graffiti artists to create canopy art).(4) Non-scientists can generate novel ideas and questions

(eg artists’ questions about epiphytic moss attach-ments elicited a botanical research project).

(5) Non-scientists are as passionate about their interestsas scientists are about scientific interests, so linkingthe two groups may strongly promote their education.

n Conclusions

The need for the transmission of scientific informationto environmental managers and policy and decisionmakers is well recognized, but scientists face many per-sonal and institutional obstacles to their involvement ineducation and outreach activities. Interface organiza-tions can help scientists overcome these obstacles byproviding a platform for scientists to become involved ineducation and outreach, with tools to help interact withdifferent audiences.

There has been recent growth in the nature and extentof interface organization activities. Long-running agricul-tural Cooperative Extension programs have expanded toaddress environmental problems, and new organizations

Figure 3. Examples of interface organization activities for non-traditional publicaudiences. Clockwise from upper left: (a) educational pamphlet on forest canopyplants and animals that accompanies “TreeTop Barbie”, marketed to young girls; (b) acompact disc created by urban youth, with tracks written by middle-school children,and guided by rap singers, about field experiences taken with ecologists; and (c) forestcanopy researcher giving a sermon on the topic of trees and spirituality.

(a) (b)

(c)

H A

nder

son

C M

cKin

ley

T D

enny


312


have emerged to address issues such as acid rain withunfamiliar audiences (eg urban youth). There have alsobeen exciting advances in approaches to science commu-nication and public engagement (Groffman et al. 2010)that have the potential to greatly increase the effective-ness of interface organizations.

In summary, interface organizations’ activities arelikely to be most effective when focused on specificissues in specific places, such as acid rain in the north-east US, and to be improved in effectiveness when syn-thesizing, “translating”, and taking scientific resultsdirectly to decision makers, through targeted docu-ments, presentations, and small meetings (eg HBRFScience-Links program). However, questions remainabout the effectiveness of certain interface-relatedefforts (eg Neuse River nutrient pollution). In general,education and outreach only serve to inform and mustinclude other approaches (eg regulation and incentives)to address issues such as pollution comprehensively.Finally, many non-traditional audiences may indeedbenefit from interaction with scientists (eg ICAN).Interface organizations, which have the expertise tointeract with a range of audiences, can greatly facilitatethe communication of science.

n Acknowledgments

The 2009 Cary Conference was supported by grants fromthe National Science Foundation (grants #DEB-0840224and #0949558), the USDA Forest Service (grant#09-DG-11132650-083), the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (grant #EP09H000638), and theUSDA Agriculture and Food Research InitiativeProgram (grants #2009-02609 and #2009-04469).

n ReferencesAndersson L. 2004. Experiences of the use of riverine nutrient

models in stakeholder dialogues. Int J Water Resour D 20:399–413.

Bacic ILZ, Rossiter DG, and Bregt AK. 2006. Using spatial infor-mation to improve collective understanding of shared envi-ronmental problems at watershed level. Landscape UrbanPlan 77: 54–66.

Bormann FH and Likens GE. 1979. Pattern and process in aforested ecosystem. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Buck LE, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, and Wollenberg E (Eds). 2001.Biological diversity: balancing interests through adaptivecollaborative management. Washington, DC: CRC Press.

Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, et al. 2003. Knowledge systems forsustainable development. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–91.

Colfer CJP (Ed). 2005. The equitable forest. Diversity, commu-nity, and resource management. Washington, DC: Resourcesfor the Future Press.

Craps M (Ed). 2003. Social learning in river basin management,WP2 report of the HarmoniCOP project, Brussels, Belgium.

Craps M and Maurel P (Eds). 2003. Social learning pool of ques-tions. An instrument to diagnose social learning and IC toolsin European river basin management, combined WP2/WP3report of the HarmoniCOP project, Brussels, Belgium.

Craps M and Prins S. 2004. Participation and social learning in

the development planning of a Flemish river valley. Casestudy report produced under work package 5 of theHarmoniCOP project, Brussels, Belgium.

Craps M, Dewulf A, Mancero M, et al. 2004. Constructing com-mon ground and re-creating differences between professionaland indigenous communities in the Andes. J CommunityAppl Soc 14: 378–93.

Driscoll CT, Lawrence GB, Bulger AJ, et al. 2001. Acid rainrevisited: advances in scientific understanding since the pas-sage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.Hanover, NH: Hubbard Brook Research Foundation,Science Links Publication.

Driscoll C, Whitall D, Aber J, et al. 2003. Nitrogen pollution:from the sources to the sea. Hanover, NH: Hubbard BrookResearch Foundation, Science Links Publication.

Driscoll CT, Evers D, Lambert KF, et al. 2007. Mercury matters:linking mercury science with public policy in theNortheastern United States. Hanover, NH: Hubbard BrookResearch Foundation, Science Links Publication.

Gieryn TF. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: credibility onthe line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Groffman PM, Driscoll CT, Likens GE, et al. 2004. Nor gloom ofnight: a new conceptual model for the Hubbard BrookEcosystem Study. BioScience 54: 139–48.

Groffman PM, Stylinski C, Nisbet MC, et al. 2010. Restartingthe conversation: challenges at the interface between ecol-ogy and society. Front Ecol Environ 8: 284–91.

Jeffrey P and Gearey M. 2006. Integrated water resources man-agement: lost on the road from ambition to realization?Water Sci Technol 53: 1–8.

Likens GE and Bormann FH. 1995. Biogeochemistry of aforested ecosystem. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Lovett GM, Burns DA, Driscoll CT, et al. 2007. Who needsenvironmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 5: 253–60.

Maurel P, Craps M, Cemesson F, et al. 2007. Concepts and meth-ods for analysing the role of information and communicationtools (IC-tools) in social learning processes for river basinmanagement. Environ Modell Softw 22: 630–39.

McCarthy JJ. 2009. Presidents who value science. Science 323:853.

Meffe GK, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, and Schenborn DA. 2002.Ecosystem management. Adaptive, community-based con-servation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Miller J. 2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward,scientific research: what we know and what we need toknow. Public Underst Sci 13: 273–94.

Nadkarni NM. 2006. The moss-in-prison project: disseminatingscience beyond academia. Front Ecol Environ 4: 442–43.

Nadkarni NM. 2007. Ecological outreach to faith-based commu-nities. Front Ecol Environ 5: 332–33.

NSB (National Science Board). 2002. Science and engineeringindicators 2002. Washington, DC: US Government PrintingOffice.

Olsson JA and Andersson L. 2007. Possibilities and problemswith the use of models as a communication tool in waterresource management. Water Resour Manag 21: 97–110.

Osmond DL, Ranells NN, Hodges SC, et al. 2001a. Trackingnitrogen loading reductions from agricultural sources:NLEW. In: Steenvoorden J, Claessen F, and Willems J (Eds).Proceedings of the International Conference on AgriculturalEffects on Ground and Surface Waters, 1–4 October 2000;Wageningen, The Netherlands. IAHS Publication 273.

Osmond DL, Xu L, Ranells NN, et al. 2001b. Nitrogen loss esti-mation worksheet (NLEW): an agricultural nitrogen loadingreduction tracking tool. In: Optimizing nitrogen manage-ment in food and energy production and environmental pro-tection: Proceedings of the 2nd International NitrogenConference on Science and Policy. Scientific World 1.


313


Priest S. 2009. Reinterpreting the audiences for media messagesabout science. In: Holliman R, Whitelegg E, Scanlon E, et al.(Eds). Investigating science communication in the informa-tion age: implications for public engagement and popularmedia. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rinaudo JD and Garin P. 2005. The benefits of combining layand expert input for water-management planning at thewatershed level. Water Policy 7: 279–93.

Roth WM, Riecken J, Pozzer-Ardenghi L, et al. 2004. Those whoget hurt aren’t always being heard: scientist-resident interac-

tions over community water. Sci Technol Hum Val 29:153–83.

Smith TA, Osmond D, and Wendell Gilliam J. 2006. Riparianbuffer width and nitrate removal in a lagoon-effluent irri-gated agricultural area. J Soil Water Conserv 61: 273–81.

Ulrich C and Nadkarni NM. 2009. Sustainability research inenforced residential institutions: collaborations of ecologistsand prisoners. Environ Dev Sustainability 11: 815–22.

Whiteman L and Nadkarni N. 2009. www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114311. Viewed 14 Jul 2009.

Coming soon:the newest memberof ESA’s family ofjournals!

l Focus on rapid publication

l Online only

l Complete open-access content

l Same rigorous peer-review standards as for other ESA journals

Official launch date:3 August 2010

For further information visit www.esapubs.org

Mission statement: The scope of Ecosphere is as broad as the science of ecology itself. The journalwelcomes submissions from all subdisciplines of ecology and interdisciplinary studies. The journal’sgoal is to provide a rapid-publication, online-only, open-access alternative to ESA’s other journals, whilemaintaining the rigorous standards of peer review for which ESA publications are renowned.

esa

Coming soon:the newest memberof ESA’s family ofjournals!

Documents

SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONTROVERSIES The role of ...cels.uri.edu/docslink/whl/Journals/Osmond_et_al... · SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONTROVERSIES The role of interface organizations