The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding

“Interface” organizations are groups created to foster the use of science in environmental policy, management, and education. Here we compare interface organizations that differ in spatial scale, modes of operation, and intended audience to illustrate their diversity and importance in promoting the application of science to environmental issues. There has been exciting recent growth in the nature and extent of activities by interface organizations and in new methods for science communication and engagement. These developments can help scientists – who face personal and institutional challenges when attempting to convey the results of their research to various audiences – interact with society on specific issues in specific places, and with a wide range of non-traditional audiences. The ongoing mission for these organizations should be to move beyond simply increasing awareness of environmental problems to the creation of solutions that result in genuine environmental improvements.

[1]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Who needs environmental monitoring , 2007 .

[2]  Susanna Horning Priest.  Reinterpreting the audiences for media messages about science , 2009 .

[3]  D. Osmond,et al.  Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW): An Agricultural Nitrogen Loading Reduction Tracking Tool , 2001, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[4]  N. Nadkarni.  The Moss‐in‐Prison project: disseminating science beyond academia , 2006 .

[5]  Jon D. Miller.  Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know , 2004 .

[6]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem , 1980 .

[7]  J. Rinaudo,et al.  The Benefits of Combining Lay and Expert Input for Water-Management Planning at the Watershed Level , 2005 .

[8]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem , 1978, Springer New York.

[9]  C. Hopkinson,et al.  Nitrogen Pollution: From the Sources to the Sea , 2003 .

[10]  Eva K. Wollenberg,et al.  Biological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management , 2001 .

[11]  D. Osmond,et al.  Riparian buffer width and nitrate removal in a lagoon-effluent irrigated agricultural area , 2006 .

[12]  Marc Craps,et al.  Participation and social learning in the developmental planning of a Flemish River Valley (HarmoniCOP Case study report produced under workpackage 5, deliverable n° 7 prepared under contract from the European Commission n° EVK-CT-2002-00120) , 2004 .

[13]  Art Dewulf,et al.  Constructing common ground and re-creating differences between professional and indigenous communities in the Andes , 2004 .

[14]  G. Likens,et al.  Nor Gloom of Night: A New Conceptual Model for the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study , 2004 .

[15]  C. Colfer.  The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community, and Resource Management , 2004 .

[16]  D. Osmond,et al.  Tracking nitrogen loading reductions from agricultural sources: NLEW. , 2002 .

[17]  Arnold K. Bregt,et al.  Using spatial information to improve collective understanding of shared environmental problems at watershed level , 2006 .

[18]  N. Nadkarni.  Ecological outreach to faith-based communities , 2007 .

[19]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Those Who Get Hurt Aren’t Always Being Heard: Scientist-Resident Interactions over Community Water , 2004 .

[21]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media , 2009 .

[22]  T. Gieryn.  Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line , 1999 .

[23]  Lotta Andersson.  Experiences of the use of riverine nutrient models in stakeholder dialogues , 2004 .

[24]  R. L. Knight,et al.  Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation , 2002 .

[25]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  Sustainability research and practices in enforced residential institutions: collaborations of ecologists and prisoners , 2009 .

[26]  P Jeffrey,et al.  Integrated water resources management: lost on the road from ambition to realisation? , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[27]  Johanna Alkan Olsson,et al.  Possibilities and problems with the use of models as a communication tool in water resource management , 2006 .

[28]  Amy J. Burgin,et al.  Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society , 2010 .

[29]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[30]  R. E. Grumbine.  What Is Ecosystem Management , 1994 .

[31]  M. Craps.  Social Learning in River Basin Management , 2003 .

[32]  A CID R AIN R EVISITED Advances in scientific understanding since the passage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments , 2022 .

[33]  Flavie Cernesson,et al.  Concepts and methods for analysing the role of Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) in Social Learning processes for River Basin Management , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..