Search

Science is fundamental to sound policies, particularly when it comes to implementing an Ecosystem Management Approach (EMA). We believe science can and should inform nearly all facets of an EMA, yet we recognize there are many challenges to this aspiration which is reflected by the relatively few examples such a comprehensive science-driven EMA. To help identify and better understand these challenges we used a qualitative case-study approach to compare the challenges and successes of implementing a science-driven EMA in the Laurentian Great Lakes. These case studies include improving coastal resilience, delisting of Areas of Concern, and addressing the challenges of declining offshore productivity. These case studies were selected because they provide a set of very different, yet complementary, cases for assessing the implementation of an EMA and the factors influencing the science-policy exchange that informs it. From this comparative assessment we identified a diverse set of challenges and successes. Some were systemic while others were more case-study specific. Also, emerging from this comparative assessment were principles and enabling conditions we believe are critical to consider when establishing or improving a science-driven EMA that will be the focus of this talk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing recognition of the importance of identifying and characterizing local variations in ecological and community revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC), where sediment remediation and habitat restoration activities are ongoing. Because of these local variations in geography, culture, opportunity, and capacity, revitalization can look different in each AOC depending on the water resources, existing businesses, existing or proposed trails and green space, and perceptions of those resources. Thus, it is important to recognize how indicators of revitalization may be arranged at the site level, and how community visions and capacity may vary. In some places, revitalization may look like people kayaking, walking on trails, or increased visiting, photography, or nature viewing. In other places, revitalization may look like increased tourism, new shops, or new or improved marinas. To illustrate how revitalization might differ in two different places with remediation and restoration projects, this presentation will share results from recent field work in Superior, WI and Cuyahoga Falls, OH. Recognizing different local social conditions is especially important for identifying and characterizing environmental justice concerns and remedies. The presentation will compare project details, local context, and revitalization indicators and conclude with recommendations for how to recognize and nurture social and ecological revitalization. The contents of this abstract neither constitute nor necessarily reflect USEPA policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]