Ecologists who specialize in translational ecology (TE) seek to link ecological knowledge to decision making by integrating ecological science with the full complement of social dimensions that underlie today's complex environmental issues. TE is motivated by a search for outcomes that directly serve the needs of natural resource managers and decision makers. This objective distinguishes it from both basic and applied ecological research and, as a practice, it deliberately extends research beyond theory or opportunistic applications. TE is uniquely positioned to address complex issues through interdisciplinary team approaches and integrated scientist-practitioner partnerships. The creativity and context-specific knowledge of resource managers, practitioners, and decision makers inform and enrich the scientific process and help shape use-driven, actionable science. Moreover, addressing research questions that arise from on-the-ground management issues -as opposed to the top-down or expert-oriented perspectives of traditional science -can foster the high levels of trust and commitment that are critical for long-term, sustained engagement between partners.

The purpose of this report is to improve understanding of the complex sociopolitical processes related to resource management and to help structure management response to conflict and contentiousness, misunderstanding among participants, and failed citizen-agency interactions. Public acceptance is essential to every resource management decision public agencies must make. Regardless of the issue-forest health, fuels management, riparian restoration, recreation impacts, or threatened and endangered species-the political environment surrounding most decisions is never about just single questions, nor is it about just ecological questions. Social acceptability involves many diverse factors that are only now beginning to be understood and given credence by resource professionals. In this analysis, we describe the social acceptability concept and identify 10 key problem areas needing indepth consideration for durable decisions to be made about forest conditions and practices on federal lands. A central conclusion is that public judgments are always provisional, never absolute or final. Each situation, each context, produces a unique set of circumstances affecting the formation of public acceptance. By its nature, social acceptability is a process rather than an end product. We conclude by presenting five basic strategies to help guide resource professionals and citizens toward more integrated solutions.

No abstract

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

No abstract

We propose a framework for understanding the role that the social sciences should play in ecosystem management. Most of the ecosystem management literature assumes that scientific understanding of ecosystems is solely the purview of natural scientists. While the evolving principles of ecosystem management recognize that people play an important role, social considerations are usually limited to political and decision-making processes and to development of environmental education. This view is incomplete. The social science aspect of ecosystem management has two distinct components: one that concerns greater public involvement in the ecosystem management decision-making process, and one that concerns integrating social considerations into the science of understanding ecosystems. Ecosystem management decisions based primarily on biophysical factors can polarize people, making policy processes more divisive than usual. Ecological data must be supplemented with scientific analysis of the key social factors relevant to a particular ecosystem. Objective social science analysis should be included on an equal basis with ecological science inquiry and with data from public involvement. A conceptual framework is presented to communicate to ecological scientists the potential array of social science contributions to ecosystem management.

We propose a framework for understanding the role that the social sciences should play in ecosystem management. Most of the ecosystem management literature assumes that scientific understanding of ecosystems is solely the purview of natural scientists. While the evolving principles of ecosystem management recognize that people play an important role, social considerations are usually limited to political and decision‐making processes and to development of environmental education. This view is incomplete. The social science aspect of ecosystem management has two distinct components: one that concerns greater public involvement in the ecosystem management decision‐making process, and one that concerns integrating social considerations into the science of understanding ecosystems. Ecosystem management decisions based primarily on biophysical factors can polarize people, making policy processes more divisive than usual. Ecological data must be supplemented with scientific analysis of the key social factors relevant to a particular ecosystem. Objective social science analysis should be included on an equal basis with ecological science inquiry and with data from public involvement. A conceptual framework is presented to communicate to ecological scientists the potential array of social science contributions to ecosystem management.

Improving the sustainability of grazed rangelands requires that landowners adopt management innovations. We interviewed Utah ranchers to better understand innovation adoption among range livestock operators, and ultimately to suggest improvements in content and delivery of outreach activities. A 2-phase, qualitative social science research method was used to encourage discovery of information unlikely to be revealed via surveys and to expand the application of adoption theory to range livestock production. In line with previous research, innovation was related to full-time ranch operation, dependence on ranch income, anticipated future of the ranch, and extent of social networks. Barriers to innovation included inadequate time and resources, peer influences, and perceived drawbacks of potential innovations (e.g., difficulty of pilot-testing new grazing systems, or poor cost-benefit ratios of vegetation treatments). In contrast to previ