No abstract

No abstract

As managers of agricultural and natural resources are confronted with uncertainties in global change impacts, the complexities associated with the interconnected cycling of nitrogen, carbon, and water present daunting management challenges. Existing models provide detailed information on specific sub-systems (e.g., land, air, water, and economics). An increasing awareness of the unintended consequences of management decisions resulting from interconnectedness of these sub-systems, however, necessitates coupled regional earth system models (EaSMs). Decision makers' needs and priorities can be integrated into the model design and development processes to enhance decision-making relevance and "usability" of EaSMs. BioEarth is a research initiative currently under development with a focus on the U.S. Pacific Northwest region that explores the coupling of multiple stand-alone EaSMs to generate usable information for resource decision-making. Direct engagement between model developers and non-academic stakeholders involved in resource and environmental management decisions throughout the model development process is a critical component of this effort. BioEarth utilizes a bottom-up approach for its land surface model that preserves fine spatialscale sensitivities and lateral hydrologic connectivity, which makes it unique among many regional EaSMs. This paper describes the BioEarth initiative and highlights opportunities and challenges associated with coupling multiple stand-alone models to generate usable information for agricultural and natural resource decision-making.

Abstract. Increases in anthropogenic emissions of sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) have resulted in increasesin the associated atmospheric deposition of acidic compounds. In sensitive watersheds, this deposition has initiated a cascade of negative environmental effects on aquatic ecosystems, resulting in a degradation or loss of valuable ecosystem goods and services. Here, we report the activities of an expert workgroup to synthesize information on acidic deposition-induced aquatic acidification from the published literature and to link critical load exceedances with ecosystem services and beneficiaries, using the Stressor-Ecological Production function-Final Ecosystem Services (STEPS) Framework and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). Experts identified and documented the sensitive aquatic ecosystem ecological endpoints valued by humans, and the environmental pathways through which these endpoints may experience degradation in response to acidification. Beneficiary groups were then identified for each sensitive ecological endpoint to clarify relationships between humans and the effects of aquatic acidification, and to lay the foundation for future research and analysis to value these FEGS.

From preventing cholera and diarrhea by reducing exposure to human waste, to reducing transmission of COVID-19 through handwashing, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) can save lives. Numerous global health initiatives have been created to combat the spread of infectious diseases. However, according to the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund, “decades of under investment in sanitation and hygiene have made this sector the weakest link in our efforts to achieve the [Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)].” There appear to be various reasons for the lag in global attention to, funding toward, and innovation around WASH-related diseases. Firstly, WASH is comprised of three interrelated components, water, sanitation, and hygiene, each of which has its own subset of indicators, priorities, and infrastructure, thus making streamlined communications and impact measurement within the sector incredibly complex. Secondly, WASH is a field that bridges many sectors, and there has historically been a lack of understanding of where responsibility lies to consistently fund and execute WASH interventions, programming, and policymaking. Additionally, public health research and funding tend to favor evaluations using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are often referred to as the “gold standard.” RCTs, like all single evaluative methods, have limitations which may not effectively capture the complexity of WASH interventions and their subsequent multi-sectoral outcomes. In some cases “it may be infeasible (or unethical) to randomize communities to a [WASH] intervention” which would prohibit the research from reaching the current “gold standard” threshold for academic rigor and subsequent funding. A new concept called “Transformative WASH” has recently emerged in the WASH sector as a result of three RCTs and calls for a “comprehensive package of WASH interventions” to effectively improve health and social outcomes. We believe that the current definition of the “gold standard” in academic research is failing the WASH sector and does not align with “Transformative WASH.” Rather, the “gold standard” should instead be a mixed methods research toolkit that utilizes Human-Centered Design (HCD) practices, and proxy methods such as “participatory design” or “Behavior Centered Design theory” to better design and evaluate WASH interventions.