Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
20 February 2014 The role of conservation partnerships between scientists and nonprofit agencies in freshwater science and management
Robert S. Stelzer, Donna R. Kashian
Author Affiliations +

Scientists and policy makers have identified several problems affecting freshwater ecosystems and water resources, including: eutrophication (Smith et al. 1999, Bianchi et al. 2010), loss of biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. 2006), water scarcity (Postel 2000, Foster and Chilton 2003), and degraded water quality (Lapworth et al. 2012). Responses to these and other problems have led to advances in technology, policy, and management, such as improvements in pollution control measures (Dolan 1993) and fisheries regulations (Bruch 1999), that have benefited freshwater ecosystems. Many of these advances originated from research by professional scientists that led directly to management or policy action. For example, insights into natural flow regimes of rivers and how altered flow regimes can affect river ecosystems (Poff and Ward 1990, Naiman et al. 1995, Poff et al. 1997) led to improvements in environmental flow assessments (Tharme 2003, Poff et al. 2009) and have informed river restoration projects (Arthington et al. 2010, King et al. 2010). In this traditional model, research-based knowledge trickles down or is transferred to and translated by policy makers and natural resource managers (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). The traditional model has undoubtedly been successful, in at least some cases, in addressing environmental problems.

van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006) critiqued the traditional model of research-based knowledge transfer and presented alternative models that may be more successful for progress in sustainable development. Their critique centered on limitations on successful transfer of information to policy makers and natural-resource managers via the traditional model because of the social context within which science is done and because of barriers to implementation of the recommendations that emerge from scientific studies, van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006) proposed 4 alternative models of knowledge transfer: 1) participation, 2) integration, 3) learning, and 4) negotiation. In the participation model, individuals or small groups of nonscientists participate in data collection to address an environmental question or issue. The issue addressed and the type of data collected are determined by researchers or policy-makers (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). The integration model involves interaction and cooperation among scientists, policy makers, managers, and other users of research results. For example, an integrated approach to water management in a watershed might include shared decision-making by specialists from different disciplines and stakeholders in the watershed (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). The learning model involves sharing of knowledge between researchers and nonscientists as an ongoing process and includes adaptivemanagement approaches. In the negotiation model, active engagement exists among researchers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Researchers may serve as important advocates for science on particular political issues. All of these alternative models recognize and embrace the social context of science. Most environmental issues, such as global climate change and perturbations of water quantity and quality, have scientific and social dimensions (Folke et al. 2002, Richter et al. 2006, Poff et al. 2009), so the alternative models may be more adept than the traditional model alone at addressing environmental problems.

Realization is growing that solutions to ongoing and emerging threats to freshwater ecosystems and water resources require collaborative approaches that engage scientists, policy makers, the private sector, and other stakeholders. The history of collaboration between scientists and citizen volunteers in the environmental sciences is rich (Dickinson et al. 2012, Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). For example, the North American Breeding Bird Survey conducted by nonprofessional and professional ornithologists has helped document the population status of many bird species in the Western Hemisphere (Robbins et al. 1996). Partnerships have long existed among scientists, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers interested in freshwater ecosystems. For example, for several decades, fisheries biologists have partnered closely with anglers to gain information about the size, age, and location of harvested fishes through tag returns (Cardona-Pons et al. 2010, Meyer et al. 2012). These data are used by fisheries biologists for developing population estimates (Pine et al. 2003), validating ages (Bruch et al. 2009), and assessing fish movement patterns (Hilborn 1990). One criticism of volunteer monitoring programs is that the results do not necessarily inform decisions made by natural-resource managers or lead to policy change. Improving estimates of bird and fish population sizes, as described above, have clear implications for natural resource management. However, few investigators have attempted to quantify the management implications of collaborations between scientists and citizen volunteers. In one study, Danielson et al. (2005) showed that a biodiversity monitoring scheme in the Philippines by park rangers and community volunteers led to ∼150 conservation management interventions and that the most participatory field-monitoring technique led to the largest number of interventions.

In the last 20 y, the number of partnerships among aquatic scientists, resource managers, and citizen volunteers that have centered on environmental monitoring of streams and lakes has increased. Aspects of aquatic ecosystems that have been monitored by participants in these partnerships include invertebrate communities (Nerbonne and Nelson 2004), microbial indicator species (Stepenuck et al. 2011), surface water hydrology (Turner and Richter 2011), and water clarity (Chipman et al. 2004). The quality of environmental data collected by volunteers has been evaluated several times (e.g., Fore et al. 2001, Nerbonne et al. 2008, Latimore and Steen 2014). In this BRIDGES cluster, we focus on conservation partnerships among professional scientists, nonprofit agencies, and unaffiliated citizens and describe how these partnerships can improve understanding and management of freshwater ecosystems and resources. We have placed these articles in the context of the alternative models linking knowledge and action proposed by van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006).

Kashian et al. (2014) presented a case study that reflects the integration model. In this case, the funding source, Michigan Sea Grant, solicited project ideas from local agencies on relevant natural resource and environmental issues. The goal was to identify research projects that could provide high-priority deliverables to managers or stakeholders in need of this information. Michigan Sea Grant used these project ideas to solicit research proposals focused on promoting translational research that delivered useful outcomes and increased dialog and partnering among researchers, managers, and other interested stakeholders. Kashian et al. (2014) described the process by which they increased stakeholder capacity to address the issue of fish consumption advisories in the Detroit River by increasing engagement, coordination, and communication among stakeholders. These efforts led to identification of the top 5 concerns related to fish consumption advisories in the Detroit River. The stakeholders were able to address some of these issues by including an additional fish species in the advisory and by developing outreach materials.

Latimore and Steen (2014) provided an example of the benefits of the participation and learning models described by van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006). Latimore and Steen (2014) showed how the Michigan Clean Water Corps (MiCorps) has expanded monitoring opportunities for citizen volunteers and has led to production of a reliable database on freshwater ecosystems. The data have been used by local lake and river associations to develop watershed management plans and by state natural resource agencies to meet their planning and reporting needs. The MiCorps database also has been used as part of a cooperative partnership between citizen scientists and researchers to identify linkages between zebra-mussel invasion status, total P, and concentrations of microcystin (a cyanobacterial toxin) and to fill gaps in these data for Michigan lakes.

In the final article in the cluster, Isley et al. (2014) described 2 collaborative projects in western Michigan that incorporated multiple aspects of the van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006) framework. First, Isley et al. (2014) described a community-based integrated assessment of stormwater runoff and management in the watershed of a drowned river mouth lake. This assessment incorporated elements of the integration and participation models in the van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006) framework. Second, Isley et al. (2014) described a project that used an ecosystem-services valuation model to inform conservation planning on a parcel of land that contains a variety of upland and wetland habitats near Lake Michigan. The project was carried out using elements of the negotiation model (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). Isley et al. (2014) used these examples to highlight some of the benefits and potential roadblocks that can occur in partnerships between scientific researchers and stakeholders, and they emphasized the importance of sustaining relationships in these partnerships.

The various research projects described in this cluster are relatable, real-world examples of applications of the models in van Kerkhoff and Lebel's (2006) engagement framework. Funding agencies and scientific researchers are finding increasingly often that partnerships with nonprofit organizations and local communities are necessary to obtain sustainable outcomes (Pohjola and Tuomisto 2011). Scientists, nonprofit organizations, community members, and managers can extract ideas from these examples to guide development of successful new partnerships. Professional scientists and the community at large, including nonprofit organizations, benefit from increased engagement and power sharing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Society of Freshwater Science's Conservation and Environmental Issues Committee for helping to formulate the idea for this series. We especially thank Ann Krause, Larissa Sano, and Michael Griffith for their contributions. This BRIDGES cluster stems from a special session entitled “The role of conservation partnerships between scientists and nonprofit agencies in freshwater science and management” at the annual meeting of the Society for Freshwater Science in Louisville, Kentucky, in 2012.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

A. H. Arthington , R. J. Naiman , M. E. McClain , and C. Nilsson . 2010. Preserving the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshwater Biology 55:1–16. Google Scholar

2.

T. S. Bianchi , S. F. DiMarco , J.H. Cowan , R. D. Hetland , P. Chapman , J. W. Day , and M. A. Allison . 2010. The science of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Science of the Total Environment 408:1471–1484. Google Scholar

3.

R. M. Bruch 1999. Management of lake sturgeon on the Winnebago system: long-term impacts of harvest and regulations on population structure. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15:142–152. Google Scholar

4.

R. M. Bruch , S. E. Campana , S. L. Davis-Foust , M. J. Hansen , and J. Janssen . 2009. Lake sturgeon age validation using bomb radiocarbon and known-age fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:361–372. Google Scholar

5.

F. Cardona-Pons , B. Morales-Nin , and S. G. Sutton . 2010. Scientists and recreational fishers: communication manners and its efficiency. Fisheries Research 106:575–578. Google Scholar

6.

J. W. Chipman , T. M. Lillesand , J. E. Schmaltz , J. E. Leale , and M. J. Nordheim . 2004. Mapping lake water clarity with Landsat images in Wisconsin, USA. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 30:1–7. Google Scholar

7.

F. Danielson , A. E. Jensen , P. A. Alviola , D. S. Balete , M. Mendoza , A. Tagtag , C. Custodio , and M. Enghoff . 2005. Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2633–2652. Google Scholar

8.

J. L. Dickinson , J. Shirk , D. Bonter , R. Bonney , R. L. Crain , J. Martin , T. Phillips , and K. Purcell . 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 291–297. Google Scholar

9.

D. M. Dolan 1993. Point-source loadings of phosphorus to Lake Erie, 1986–1990. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:212–223. Google Scholar

10.

D. Dudgeon , A.H. Arthington , M. O. Gessner , Z. I. Kawabata , D. J. Knowler , C. Leveque , R. J. Naiman , A.H. Prieur-Richard , A. H. Soto , M. L. J. Stiassny , and C. A. Sullivan . 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163–182. Google Scholar

11.

C. Folke , S. Carpenter , T. Elmqvist , L. Gunderson , C. S. Holling , and B. Walker . 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31:437–440. Google Scholar

12.

L. S. Fore , K. Paulsen , and K. O'Laughlin . 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46:109–123. Google Scholar

13.

S. S. D. Foster , and P. J. Chilton . 2003. Groundwater: the processes and global significance of aquifer degradation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 358:1957–1972. Google Scholar

14.

R. Hilborn 1990. Determination of fish movement patterns from tag recoveries using maximum likelihood estimators. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:635– 643. Google Scholar

15.

E. S. Isley , A. D. Steinman , P. N. Isely , and M. A. Parsell . 2014. Building partnerships to tackle conservation and management of West Michigan's natural resources. Freshwater Science 33: 679–685. Google Scholar

16.

D. R. Kashian , A. Krause , L. Sano , K. Drouillard , and B. Nowell . 2014. Capacity building in stakeholders around Detroit River fish consumption advisory issues. Freshwater Science 33: 674–678. Google Scholar

17.

A. J. King , K. A. Ward , P. O'Connor , D. Green , Z. Tonkin , and J. Mahoney . 2010. Adaptive management of an environmental watering event to enhance native fish spawning and recruitment. Freshwater Biology 55:17–31. Google Scholar

18.

D. J. Lapworth , N. Baran , M. E. Stuart , and R. S. Ward . 2012. Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: a review of sources, fate, and occurrence. Environmental Pollution 163: 287–303. Google Scholar

19.

J. A. Latimore , and P. J. Steen . 2014. Integrating freshwater science and local management through volunteer monitoring partnerships: the Michigan Clean Water Corps. Freshwater Science 33:686–692. Google Scholar

20.

K. A . Meyer , F. S. Elle , J. A. Lamansky , E. R. J. M. Mamer , and A. E. Butts . 2012. A reward-recovery study to estimate tagged-fish reporting rates by Idaho anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:696–703. Google Scholar

21.

A. Miller-Rushing , R. Primack , and R. Bonney . 2012. The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:285–290. Google Scholar

22.

R. J. Naiman , J. J. Magnuson , D. M. McKnight , and J. A. Stanford . 1995. The freshwater imperative: a research agenda. Island Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

23.

J. F. Nerbonne , and K. C. Nelson . 2004. Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring in the United States: resource mobilization and comparative state structures. Society and Natural Resources 17:817–839. Google Scholar

24.

J. F. Nerbonne , B. Ward , A. Ollila , and M. Williams , and B. Vondracek . 2008. Effect of sampling protocol and volunteer bias when sampling for macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:640–646. Google Scholar

25.

W. E. Pine , K. H. Pollock , J. E. Hightower , T. J. Kwak , and J. A. Rice . 2003. A review of tagging methods for estimating fish population size and components of mortality. Fisheries 28(10): 10–23. Google Scholar

26.

N. L. Poff , J. D. Allan , M. B. Bain , J. R. Karr , K. L. Prestegaard , B. D. Richter , R. E. Sparks , and J. C. Stromberg . 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769–784. Google Scholar

27.

N. L. Poff , B. D. Richter , A. H. Arthington , S. E. Bunn , R. J. Naiman , E. Kendy , M. Acreman , C. Apse , B. P. Bledsoe , M. C. Freeman , J. Henriksen , R. B. Jacobson , J. G. Kennen , D. M. Merritt , J. H. O'Keefe , J. D. Olden , K. Rogers , R. E. Tharme , A. Warner . 2009. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55:147–170. Google Scholar

28.

N. L. Poff , and J. V. Ward . 1990. The physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatial-temporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management 14:629–646. Google Scholar

29.

M. V. Pohjola , and J. T. Tuomisto . 2011. Openness in participation, assessment, and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health: a review of literature and recent project results. Environmental Health 10:article 58. Google Scholar

30.

S. L. Postel 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecological Applications 10:942–948. Google Scholar

31.

B. D. Richter , A. T. Warner , J. L. Meyer , and K. Lutz . 2006. A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications 22:297–318. Google Scholar

32.

C. S. Robbins , D. Bystrak , and P. H. Geissler . 1996. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years, 1965–1979. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 157. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

33.

V. H. Smith , G. D. Tilman , and J. C. Nekola . 1999. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments. Environmental Pollution 100:179–196. Google Scholar

34.

K. F. Stepenuck , L. G. Wolfson , B. W. Liukkonen , J. M. Iles , and T. S. Grant . 2011. Volunteer monitoring of E. coli in streams of the upper midwestern United States: a comparison of methods. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 174:625–633. Google Scholar

35.

R. E. Tharme 2003. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications 19:5–6. Google Scholar

36.

D. S. Turner , and H. E. Richter . 2011. Wet/dry mapping: using citizen scientists to monitor the extent of perennial surface flow in dryland regions. Environmental Management 47:497–505. Google Scholar

37.

L. van Kerkhoff , and L. Lebel . 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Reviewof Environmental Resources 31:445–477. Google Scholar

Notes

[1] *BRIDGES is a recurring feature of FWS intended to provide a forum for the interchange of ideas and information relevant to FWS readers, but beyond the usual scope of a scientific paper. Articles in this series will bridge from aquatic ecology to other disciplines, e.g., political science, economics, education, chemistry, or other biological sciences. Papers may be complementary or take alternative viewpoints. Authors with ideas for topics should contact BRIDGES Co-Editors, Ashley Moerke (amoerke@lssu.edu) and Allison Roy (aroy@eco.umass.edu).

© 2014 by The Society for Freshwater Science
Robert S. Stelzer and Donna R. Kashian "The role of conservation partnerships between scientists and nonprofit agencies in freshwater science and management," Freshwater Science 33(2), 670-673, (20 February 2014). https://doi.org/10.1086/675770
Received: 11 April 2013; Accepted: 6 December 2013; Published: 20 February 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
4 PAGES


Share
SHARE
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top