The Ecosystem Approach in the 21st Century: Guiding Science and Management – A Synthesis

Maintaining the integrity and health of aquatic ecosystems is critical to sustaining the many valued services that they provide society. Unfortunately, achieving this goal has proven challenging in most of the world's large ecosystems owing to rampant environmental change caused by human-driven stress, including accelerating climate change, pollution of waterways, habitat modification and destruction, and the continued spread of non-native species (He and Silliman, 2019; Jenny et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2007). These stressors, which can also include purposeful management actions (e.g. nutrient and fisheries management), are presenting a grave challenge globally to efforts aimed at securing a sustainable future for nature, society, and the economy.To facilitate and successfully operationalize approaches to management and policymaking that can help sustain the world's ecosystems and their valued services in the face of ongoing and future human-induced ecosystem change, the Ecosystem Approach in the 21st Century: Guiding Science and Management Conference was held at the University of Windsor (Windsor, Ontario) during August 2022 (Munawar and Hartig, 2020). This conference brought scientists, students, knowledge holders, managers, and policy experts together from across the globe. The year of this conference marked the 50th anniversary of the signing of the first (1972) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States of America. In 1978, the concept of the “Ecosystem Approach”, which we define as endeavors that consider the biological, chemical, and physical dimensions of the ecosystem, while also considering humans as part of the system (Vallentyne and Beeton, 1998), was added as a major principle of the GLWQA. Its core concepts continue to guide how agencies manage, remediate, and restore ecosystems degraded by human-driven environmental change (Hartig and Munawar, 2021; Hartig et al., 2020; Mackenzie, 1993; Vallentyne and Beeton, 1988; Vollenweider et al., 1974). While the 2022 Ecosystem Approach conference centered on the North American (Laurentian) Great Lakes, examples of ecosystem-based management (EBM) from other parts of the world were also introduced and discussed in workshops attended by subsets of the conference participants.Ecosystem-based management is broader than the Ecosystem Approach as it strengthens the emphasis on social systems (e.g. their goals and dynamics), within a holistic, coupled human-natural system approach (Williams et al., 2023). As outlined in Christensen et al. (1996) and Williamson et al. (2023), several key principles embody EBM, including recognizing that humans are a part of ecosystems, that management visions should consider both environmental and societal goals, and that long-term ecosystem resilience is promoted by connectedness and complexity among ecosystem components, both environmental and societal. Ecosystem-based management also highlights the value of focusing on intergenerational ecosystem sustainability and managing adaptively, wherein management actions or strategies are treated as hypotheses to be continually tested by research and monitoring. By considering worldwide applications of EBM, as opposed to only the Ecosystem Approach within the Great Lakes Basin, conference participants could learn from the past, explore ongoing efforts, and identify how remaining challenges to successfully implement EBM approaches locally and globally could be overcome and sustained, both now and in the face of continued “. . .political, economic, and ecological turmoil. . .” (Munawar and Hartig, 2020).Each contribution to this special issue presents a product of a workshop convened as part of the broader Ecosystem Approach in the 21st Century Conference. The first four papers focus on identifying ways to improve the successful implementation of EBM approaches. The lead paper (Ludsin et al., 2024) provides a general overview of key needs for and barriers to successful EBM, with the next three focusing on specific ways to improve the implementation of EBM. More specifically, these latter three papers respectively discuss the need to: 1) improve the usability and applicability of science in policymaking (Williams et al., 2024); 2) design and implement effective outreach and community engagement components in support of EBM (Kellogg et al., 2024); and 3) acknowledge, appreciate, and invest in Indigenous Ways of Being while planning and executing EBM (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024). The last three papers in this collection present recommendations about enabling conditions that facilitate the implementation of EBM. Specifically, two papers focus explicitly on the development of Blue Economies in inland (freshwater) ecosystems (i.e. economies that are designed to conserve and sustain aquatic biodiversity such that economic growth and resource use can continue). The first of these papers focuses on the Laurentian Great Lakes (Carlson et al., 2024), with the second centering on the East African Great Lakes (Van der Knaap et al., 2024). The final paper of this special issue moves away from discussing specific management approaches, instead discussing the need for and value of emerging technologies to supporting and advancing EBM approaches in large aquatic ecosystems (Verhamme et al., 2024).Below, we recap each paper's major messages and management implications. Afterwards, we offer some synthetic, concluding remarks that have relevance to aquatic ecosystems both large and small.Ludsin et al. (2024) report on a workshop focused on identifying ways to enhance successful implementation of EBM approaches globally, including in the Laurentian Great Lakes. This workshop invited scientists from across the world with diverse management experiences and research expertise in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The workshop's presentations, discussions, and writing exercise provided insights into needs for and barriers to EBM implementation success. Most prominently, Ludsin et al. suggest that setting clear, measurable, and shared goals that are achievable is most critical to successful EBM implementation and also offers the fewest barriers to achievement. By contrast, Ludsin et al. report i) accounting for and navigating governance structure limitations, ii) sustaining support for EBM efforts, and iii) building relationships to ensure ongoing commitment by partners and communities (i.e. getting stakeholder buy-in) as the next most important needs for successful EBM implementation. Unlike the previous need (i.e. goal-setting), these latter three needs face many barriers to implementation, helping to understand why effective EBM strategies have remained globally elusive, including in the Great Lakes. Quality science and effective communication was also deemed essential by many workshop participants; however, these two needs were mentioned less frequently than the others. By combining results from this workshop with insights gathered from the broader scientific literature, Ludsin et al. offer ways to facilitate effective EBM implementation inside and outside of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin.Similar to Ludsin et al. (2024), Williams et al. (2024) argue that science is fundamental to sound policymaking in an EBM context and focus explicitly on challenges to applying science in such a context. To help identify and better understand these challenges, Williams et al. use a qualitative-research, comparative case-study approach to identify and characterize the challenges and successes of implementing a science-driven EBM within the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. These case studies, which include the delisting of designated Areas of Concern as identified in the GLWQA – improving coastal resilience and addressing declining offshore lake productivity – were selected because they represent distinct examples of how science informs different policies. Through comparison, Williams et al. identify factors that influence science-policy exchange (i.e. the transfer of research findings into tangible policy actions) and characteristics that influence successful implementation of EBM approaches. This comparative study reveals a diverse set of challenges and successes, which fall into three overarching categories that facilitated or constrained the application of science in an EBM plan: scale, governance, and shared goals. Williams et al. then provide suggestions to help address these potential challenges, including resolving scale mismatches, enhancing boundary work, and co-producing scientific research with those who use research.In a similar vein as the previous two papers, Kellogg et al. (2024) identify challenges to implementation of EBM approaches and offer recommendations to improve their success. However, these authors focus on the need to understand the function of socioecological systems as the basis of interactions among the general public, management professionals, and policymakers in specific. Kellogg et al. argue that such knowledge about these systems is fundamental to the successful implementation of any ecosystem-based approach. Their investigation of the peer-reviewed literature reveals that through informal outreach and formal education, as well as knowledge mobilization opportunities, researchers, agencies, organizations, and individuals can learn about the intersectionality of biophysical and socioeconomic systems that create place, which can guide adaptive management strategies and facilitate the effective use of EBM approaches. Kellogg et al.’s investigation also finds that outreach and community engagement are essential for changing policies, improving decision-making, and altering individual behaviors. These authors also discuss how experiential learning in formal educational settings can allow learners to apply concepts in and beyond the classroom, thereby fostering a connection to place, and that inter-organizational networks consisting of stakeholders, professional managers, and scientists are critical to generating and mobilizing “knowledge for action.” Kellogg et al.’s exploration provides exemplars of best practices in these intersecting aspects, as well as a variety of recommendations to overcome challenges associated with: i) learning how socioecological systems function; ii) imparting knowledge to different groups (e.g. general public, resource managers, and decisionmakers); and iii) creating conditions to facilitate interactions among researchers, agencies, organizations, and individuals so that actionable science can be co-produced and used effectively in a management context.Similar to Kellogg et al. (2024), Nolan, Duncan et al. (2024) focus on the importance to effective EBM implementation of understanding longstanding perspectives, values, and knowledge of rightsholders. Indigenous peoples are not just stakeholders, they have constitutionally protected rights. In Canada, a legal duty to consult exists. Unlike any of the previous papers, these authors center on the need for and value of considering Indigenous groups and their knowledge systems in EBM planning. Nolan, Duncan et al. draw from discussions in their conference workshop (initially entitled Indigenous Management Systems), which engaged community practitioners, academicians, and Indigenous youth on the themes of relationships, the Ecosystem Approach, Indigenous-led initiatives, and research in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Nayaano-nibiimaang Gichigamiin in Anishaabemowin, the Ojibwe language). Engagement at the workshop occurred via different forums, including a guided nature walk at Ojibway Nature Centre with First Nation Elders, a shared meal, and a sharing circle. Discussion in the sharing circle was open and free-flowing and focused on several key themes of concern (i.e. relationships and relationality; the critical role youth play and will play in the future; anti-racism; recommendations for policy and practice; and Indigenous Ways of Being and the Ecosystem Approach). These discussions resulted in several recommendations to improve the success of EBM approaches in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Nolan, Duncan et al. identify the need to recognize Indigenous sovereignty as most critical to elevating these key concerns and supporting a more holistic vision of an ecosystem-based approach to management and scholarship. This recognition includes settler and non-Indigenous scientists investing in and maintaining real relationships by listening to and standing with Indigenous Peoples in an effort to better support and care for their Lands, Waters, and Kin. Additionally, Nolan, Duncan et al. identify the need for better avenues of funding and responsive structures to support Indigenous-led initiatives in these areas including supporting Indigenous First Nations and Tribal groups already engaged in ecosystem monitoring. Doing so can strengthen and bridge capacity in a self-determined way.Many of the core elements of the Ecosystem Approach, which was the focus of the 2022 conference that spawned this special issue (Munawar and Hartig, 2020), can be found within related concepts/frameworks that have emerged during recent decades, including EBM (Williams et al., 2023), Green Infrastructure (Wang and Banzhaf, 2018), and Nature-based Solutions (Sharifi, 2023), among many others (see Ludsin et al., 2024). One other concept that can be traced back to the Ecosystem Approach is Blue Economy, which Carlson et al. (2024) describe herein as a multifaceted concept involving balanced use and conservation of aquatic resources to promote human well-being, economic growth, social equity, and sustainability. Despite its conceptual appeal and rising consideration in aquatic ecosystem management discussions inside and outside of the Great Lakes basin (e.g. Ayilu et al., 2022; Boonstra et al., 2018; Pauly, 2018), the Blue Economy has rarely been applied to inland fisheries, including any of the world's Great Lakes.In the first of two papers focused on the Blue Economy, Carlson et al. (2024) discuss the need to conceptualize the Laurentian Great Lakes from a Blue Economy perspective using a coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) framework. Their argument for this need is two-fold. First, these authors acknowledge that sustainable development dialogues have rarely considered inland fish and fisheries. And second, owing to increased threats to inland fish, habitats, and human users in this Laurentian Great Lakes Basin, the need exists to communicate the value of inland fisheries (e.g. ecological, economic, societal) clearly and convincingly and thereby elevate the profile of these important systems. Carlson et al. then describe opportunities to leverage CHANS methods (e.g. metacoupling – human-nature interactions within and between adjacent and distant systems) and associated quantitative approaches to advance fisheries science and management in pursuit of a Blue Economy in the Basin. In addition to illustrating how a metacoupling framework could be used to integrate local and distant human–nature interactions in Laurentian Great Lakes fisheries, these authors articulate an approach for implementing it in other regions of the world, including the African Great Lakes.Like Carlson et al. (2024), Van der Knaap et al. (2024) argue for the advancement the Blue Economy approach in East Africa's Great Lakes, particularly in and around lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. These authors argue, however, that opportunities for Blue Economy growth will require investment in, commitment to, and management within riparian states and their populations, if challenges associated with continued population growth, increasing fishing effort, pollution and improper waste disposal, biodiversity loss, and fossil fuel exploration and exploitation are to be overcome. Another challenge to Blue Economy growth identified by Van der Knaap et al. is aquaculture, given that capture fisheries have practically reached their maximum outputs. However, these authors suggest aquaculture as a potential opportunity if it could be conducted in a sustainable fashion. In addition, Van der Knaap et al. discuss the recent decision by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa to valuate and manage the services that Africa's Great Lakes provide such that resultant profits can facilitate continued management, and of these services the of the and the around These authors argue that a Blue Economy approach natural resource management, and youth and for their which in could help many social and environmental this special first papers focus on the management or socioeconomic and socioecological of the final paper focuses explicitly on elements of EBM. Specifically, et al. (2024) discuss the role of in the pursuit of ecosystem-based approaches to management in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. These authors argue that the of the Great Lakes presents challenges to effective and However, they also suggest that the of in ecosystems to overcome some of these challenges well for the Great of the associated with methods for habitat and (e.g. between collection and their not at and et al. identify important areas for technologies and including and could improve understanding of and as well as and during the and (e.g. These authors also discuss the need for across and governance that not as emerging technologies to address these the of that human-driven environmental change is and its ecosystems to approach critical et al., et al., the has for agencies to EBM instead of for its of this special papers this with other parts of the world, the for EBM has been and in the Laurentian Great Lakes for This emerged during the by et al., et al., Vallentyne and Beeton, and by a (i.e. the Great Lakes Water Quality this the for ecosystem-based approaches to management that are holistic, and of the needs of diverse and has only worldwide et al., et al., 2023), including in the Laurentian Great Lakes et al., 2021; et al., 2019; and Hartig, 2020; et al., this successful implementation of globally has not been including in the Great Lakes of the The papers in this special issue offer context to help understand why EBM et al., 2024) has not been in these ecosystems, as well as In addition to a perspective on why EBM is each special issue paper to remaining challenges that need to be overcome and offers ways to help overcome Ludsin et al. (2024) provide a perspective on the key needs for EBM success and the barriers to achieving with the other papers centering on specific challenges, including policy with science (Williams et al., 2024), and outreach (Kellogg et al., 2024), understanding and investing in Indigenous knowledge and Ways of Being (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024), implementing economic strategies (i.e. Blue and holistic research approaches (e.g. in inland aquatic ecosystems (Carlson et al., Van der Knaap et al., 2024), and and sustaining technologies (Verhamme et al., 2024). Additionally, papers identified a clear, need for continued support and investment in EBM, both in the and the this to are they should Unfortunately, however, continued support of ecosystem-based approaches is not the a in Ludsin et al. (2024) and et al., 2024) and also by of Ontario) who their ecosystem-based science of special issue papers also highlights the continued need to better understand and the socioecological system within each ecosystem, which we is diverse within both the North American (Nolan, Duncan et al., Williams et al., 2024) and East African (Van der Knaap et al., 2024) Great Lakes on the to this special of potential (e.g. general public, resource managers, and Indigenous is essential if sustainable EBM are to (Ludsin et al., Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024). each paper as essential the need to improve communication among different of groups within different of an Doing so can allow for clear, goals to be set and support to be (Ludsin et al., 2024), science to be co-produced and applied to policy (Williams et al., 2024), and to be that can facilitate the of “knowledge for (Kellogg et al., 2024). and diverse also is key to the success of Blue Economy approaches to aquatic ecosystem management (Carlson et al., Van der Knaap et al., needs and challenges identified in these papers with a literature on EBM (e.g. et al., and and and 2022; et al., also Ludsin et al., and which we in both and the the challenges to EBM that both inside and outside of the world's Great Lakes that achieving EBM will not be and it will a commitment to change by as well as and among those with Van der Knaap et al. (2024) offer some for the East African Great Lakes, which have been by and the and that exists in the United States not suggest an for the Laurentian Great the however, the shared challenges to EBM that many of aquatic ecosystems face offer a as we can learn from the experiences in other ecosystems. by using social science approaches (e.g. Williams et al., 2024), by (e.g. Kellogg et al., 2024), by human–nature across (e.g. Carlson et al., 2024), by to transfer from set of ecosystems to (Verhamme et al., 2024), and by and investing in Indigenous-led efforts (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024), we can continue to identify among ecosystems, and a set of general factors that promote the successful implementation of EBM approaches (e.g. local values, economic such need to consider the of ecosystem-based approaches that in their (e.g. Ecosystem Approach, Nature-based Green Nature to and 2019; Ludsin et al., et al., et al. investigation could continue to lead to to understand and guide the success of EBM planning and implementation, which in could in regions of the world that are or or ecosystems are a to offers some highlights of the papers in this special we that they be in as so exists within are that the and within these papers will provide that can EBM efforts in the as well as to knowledge that could be with future by these knowledge and to identify ways to facilitate the successful implementation of EBM approaches will we the to and the health and integrity of aquatic ecosystems, which is critical to sustaining biodiversity and the valued services they provide to society, such as opportunities, and economic Ecosystem Approach in the 21st Century: Guiding Science and Management Conference was by the Ecosystem and Management the University of The Nature and Canada, the American The the Great Lakes the the the University of of and the for Great Lakes the and the of Ojibway Nature and two from the for on a previous of this The in this are those of the authors and not the or of the

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.