Using integrated research and interdisciplinary science: Potential benefits and challenges to managers of parks and protected areas

Charles van Riper; Robert B. Powell; Gary Machlis; Jan W. van Wagtendonk; Carena J. van Riper; Eick von Ruschkowski; Steven E. Schwarzbach; Russell E. Galipeau

USGS · 70040063

Using integrated research and interdisciplinary science: Potential benefits and challenges to managers of parks and protected areas

Charles van Riper·Robert B. Powell·Gary Machlis·Jan W. van Wagtendonk·Carena J. van Riper·Eick von Ruschkowski·Steven E. Schwarzbach·Russell E. Galipeau

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Our purpose in this paper is to build a case for utilizing interdisciplinary science to enhance the management of parks and protected areas. We suggest that interdisciplinary science is necessary for dealing with the complex issues of contemporary resource management, and that using the best available integrated scientific information be embraced and supported at all levels of agencies that manage parks and protected areas. It will take the commitment of park managers, scientists, and agency leaders to achieve the goal of implementing the results of interdisciplinary science into park management. Although such calls go back at least several decades, today interdisciplinary science is sporadically being promoted as necessary for supporting effective protected area management(e.g., Machlis et al. 1981; Kelleher and Kenchington 1991). Despite this history, rarely has "interdisciplinary science" been defined, its importance explained, or guidance provided on how to translate and then implement the associated research results into management actions (Tress et al. 2006; Margles et al. 2010). With the extremely complex issues that now confront protected areas (e.g., climate change influences, extinctions and loss of biodiversity, human and wildlife demographic changes, and unprecedented human population growth) information from more than one scientific discipline will need to be brought to bear in order to achieve sustained management solutions that resonate with stakeholders (Ostrom 2009). Although interdisciplinary science is not the solution to all problems, we argue that interdisciplinary research is an evolving and widely supported best practice. In the case of park and protected area management, interdisciplinary science is being driven by the increasing recognition of the complexity and interconnectedness of human and natural systems, and the notion that addressing many problems can be more rapidly advanced through interdisciplinary study and analysis.

Explore related subjects

The George Wright Forum Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Charles van Riper, Robert B. Powell, Gary Machlis, Jan W. van Wagtendonk, Carena J. van Riper, Eick von Ruschkowski, Steven E. Schwarzbach, Russell E. Galipeau. 2012. Using integrated research and interdisciplinary science: Potential benefits and challenges to managers of parks and protected areas. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70040063

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2015

Making the transition to the third era of natural resources management

We are entering the third era of National Park Service (NPS) natural resources management— an era defined by rapid and unprecedented global changes. This third era promises to overturn not only some of our most fundamental assumptions about parks and protected areas, but also many of the ideals we currently hold dear. A common initial reaction to the diverse challenges of this transition is to feel overwhelmed and adrift; I have certainly had such feelings myself. But these feelings carry the risk of reducing our effectiveness as resource stewards right when we can least afford to be less effective: during a transition that is demanding us to be particularly clear-headed and far-seeing. Here I briefly examine some of the challenges of this new era, focusing on those that can most often elicit feelings of discouragement. When we examine the challenges individually, they begin to lose some of their ability to cast gloom—especially when we consider them in the light of lessons from an earlier fundamental transition in NPS natural resources management, beginning a half-century ago. My perspective is shaped by my 35 years as a place-based scientist stationed in a large national park (Sequoia and Kings Canyon), and by my passion for national parks in general. While the discussion that follows is most relevant to large national parks set aside primarily for their natural features, several of the ideas are also relevant to other park units.

The George Wright Forum↗

USGS2014

Park Break: collaborative opportunity established for graduate students

Among the many topics discussed during the 2007-2008 George Wright Society (GWS) board meetings was the subject of how to inspire students seeking careers in science and natural resource management to consider the Department of Interior (DOI) in general, and the National Park Service (NPS) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) in particular, as good options for future employment. Board members participating in these discussions included Suzette Kimball, now acting director of USGS, and Gillian Browser, now a research scientists with Colorado State University, who envisioned a program that would offer an alternative to the break from classes that universities typically offer students in early spring. Since those initial discussions among the GWS board members, Park Break sessions have been held in eleven different NPS sites across the country. Each session has sponsored six to eight graduate students in various stages off their university programs for a week-long seminar focused on a specific theme relevant to the host park, such as conversation policy and climate change. Sessions have varied in format but all generally have been composed of a week of field and classroom activity with participation from local, state, and national experts.

The George Wright Forum↗

USGS2014

Mercury in the national parks

One thing is certain: Even for trained researchers, predicting mercury’s behavior in the environment is challenging. Fundamentally it is one of 98 naturally occurring elements, with natural sources, such as volcanoes, and concentrated ore deposits, such as cinnabar. Yet there are also human-caused sources, such as emissions from both coal-burning power plants and mining operations for gold and silver. There are elemental forms, inorganic or organic forms, reactive and unreactive species. Mercury is emitted, then deposited, then re-emitted—thus earning its mercurial reputation. Most importantly, however, it is ultimately transferred into food chains through processes fueled by tiny microscopic creatures: bacteria.

The George Wright Forum↗