RDM+PM Checklist: Towards a Measure of Your Institution’s Preparedness for the Effective Planning of Research Data Management

A review at our institution and a number of other Australian universities was conducted to identify an optimal institutional-wide approach to Research Data Management (RDM). We found, with a few notable exceptions, a lack of clear policies and processes across institutes and no harmonisation in the approaches taken. We identified limited methods in place to cater for the development of Research Data Management Plans (RDMPs) across different disciplines, project types and no identifiable business intelligence (BI) for auditing or oversight. When interviewed, many researchers were not aware of their institution’s RDM policy, whilst others did not understand how it was relevant to their research. It was also discovered that primary materials (PM), which are often directly linked to the effective management of research data, were not well covered. Additionally, it was unclear in understanding who was the data custodian responsible for overall oversight, and there was a lack of clear guidance on the roles and responsibilities of researchers and their supervisors. These findings indicate that institutions are at risk in terms of meeting regulatory requirements and managing data effectively and safely. In this paper, we outline an alternative approach focusing on RDM ‘Planning’ rather than on RDMPs themselves. We developed simple-to-understand guidance for researchers on the redeveloped RDM policy, which was implemented via an online ‘RDM+PM Checklist’ tool that guides researchers and students. Moreover, as it is a structured tool, it provides real-time business intelligence that can be used to measure how compliant the organisation is and ideally identify opportunities for continuous improvement

Seeps, springs and wetlands: San Juan Basin, Colorado. Social-ecological climate resilience project

Prepared for: North Centeral Climate Adaptation Science Center.Social-Ecological Climate Resilience Project, 2016.Includes bibliographical references

Social Ecological Climate Resilience Project - 2016

Prepared for: North Central Climate Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.February 2017.Includes bibliographical references.Climate change is already having impacts on nature, ecosystem services and people in southwestern Colorado and is likely to further alter our natural landscapes in the coming decades. Understanding the potential changes and developing adaptation strategies can help ensure that natural landscapes and human communities remain healthy in the face of a changing climate. An interdisciplinary team consisting of social, ecological and climate scientists developed an innovative climate planning framework and worked with the Social‐Ecological Climate Resilience Project (SECR) and other stakeholders in Colorado’s San Juan River watershed to develop adaptation strategies for two significant landscapes, pinyon juniper woodlands and seeps, springs, and wetland resources under three climate scenarios between 2035 and 2050. This report summarizes the planning framework and results for the pinyon‐juniper landscape (the seeps, springs and wetlands results will be provided separately). This framework can be utilized to develop strategies for other landscapes at local, state, and national scales. Diagrams, narrative scenarios, and maps that depict climate scenarios and the social‐ecological responses help us portray the climate impact in the face of an uncertain future. Interviews and focus group workshops with agency staff and stakeholders who are users of public lands identified several important opportunities to improve the adaptation planning process for developing strategies that meet both social and ecological needs. Planning techniques that include or directly relate to specific resources, such as water and forage, or to activities, such as recreation or grazing, provide avenues for engaging diverse stakeholders into the process. Utilizing the scenarios to understand the impacts to our social and ecological landscapes, three overarching landscape‐scale adaptation strategies were developed. Each of these strategies has a suite of potential actions required to reach a desired future condition. The three key strategies are: 1) identify and protect persistent ecosystems as refugia, 2) proactively manage for resilience, and 3) accept, assist, and allow for transformation in non‐climate refugia sites. If the framework and strategies from this project are adopted by the local community, including land managers, owners, and users, the climate change impacts can be reduced, allowing for a more sustainable human and natural landscape

Rotons and Quantum Evaporation from Superfluid 4He

The probability of evaporation induced by $R^+$ and $R^-$ rotons at the surface of superfluid helium is calculated using time dependent density functional theory. We consider excitation energies and incident angles such that phonons do not take part in the scattering process. We predict sizable evaporation rates, which originate entirely from quantum effects. Results for the atomic reflectivity and for the probability of the roton change-mode reflection are also presented.Comment: 11 pages, REVTEX, 3 figures available upon request or at http://anubis.science.unitn.it/~dalfovo/papers/papers.htm

Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives

Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to “span the boundaries” between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface (“boundary spanning”) and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability

To what extent are land resource managers preparing for high-end climate change in Scotland?

We explore the individual and institutional conditions and the climate information used to underpin decision-making for adaptation to high-end climate change (HECC) scenarios in a land resource management context. HECC refers to extreme projections with global annual temperature increases of over 4 °C. We analyse whether HECC scenarios are used in the adaptation decision-making of stakeholders who will tackle the potential problem. We also explore whether the adaptation actions being considered are pertinent only to future climate change or whether other drivers and information types are used in decision-making (including non-climate drivers). We also address the role of knowledge uncertainty in adaptation decision-making. Decision-makers perceive HECC as having a low probability of occurrence and so they do not directly account for HECC within existing actions to address climate change. Such actions focus on incremental rather than transformative solutions in which non-climate drivers are at least as important, and in many cases more important, than climate change alone. This reflects the need to accommodate multiple concerns and low risk options (i.e. incremental change). Uncertainty in climate change information is not a significant barrier to decision-making and stakeholders indicated little need for more climate information in support of adaptation decision-making. There is, however, an identified need for more information about the implications of particular sectoral and cross-sectoral impacts under HECC scenarios. The outcomes of this study provide evidence to assist in contextualising climate change information by creating usable, cross-sectoral, decision-centred information

Mainstreaming the Social Sciences in Conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice

An agenda for research and action towards diverse and just futures for life on Earth

Decades of research and policy interventions on biodiversity have insufficiently addressed the dual issues of biodiversity degradation and social justice. New approaches are therefore needed. This essay outlines a research and action agenda that calls for a collective task of 'revisiting biodiversity' towards the goal of sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth. The agenda was developed through a two-year dialogue process that involved close to 300 experts from diverse disciplines and geographies. This process was informed by social science insights that have shown that biodiversity research and action is underpinned by choices about how problems are conceptualized. Recognizing knowledge, action, and ethics as inseparable, we synthesize a set of principles that help navigate the task of 'revisiting biodiversity'. The agenda articulates four thematic areas for future research. First, the need to revisit biodiversity narratives by challenging conceptualizations that exclude diversity and entrench the separation of humans, cultures, economies, and societies from nature. Second, embracing a focus on the relationships between the anthropocene, biodiversity, and culture by considering humanity and biodiversity as tied together in specific contexts. Third, focusing on nature and economy by better accounting for the interacting structures of economic and financial systems as core drivers of biodiversity loss. Finally, enabling transformative biodiversity research and action by re-configuring relationships between human and non-human communities in and through science, policy, and practice. Revisiting biodiversity necessitates a renewed focus on dialogue among biodiversity communities and beyond that critically reflects on the past to channel research and action towards fostering just and diverse futures for human and non-human life on Earth. Article impact statement: Placing diversity and justice at the heart of transformative change for biodiversity offers important new directions for research and action. This article is protected by copyright

Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

It has long been claimed that a better understanding of human or social dimensions of environmental issues will improve conservation. The social sciences are one important means through which researchers and practitioners can attain that better understanding. Yet, a lack of awareness of the scope and uncertainty about the purpose of the conservation social sciences impedes the conservation community's effective engagement with the human dimensions. This paper examines the scope and purpose of eighteen subfields of classic, interdisciplinary and applied conservation social sciences and articulates ten distinct contributions that the social sciences can make to understanding and improving conservation. In brief, the conservation social sciences can be valuable to conservation for descriptive, diagnostic, disruptive, reflexive, generative, innovative, or instrumental reasons. This review and supporting materials provides a succinct yet comprehensive reference for conservation scientists and practitioners. We contend that the social sciences can help facilitate conservation policies, actions and outcomes that are more legitimate, salient, robust and effective