Recognizing the need to communicatescientific results

Although the NPS I&M networks werenot explicitly charged with developingcommunication products, sharing scientificresults is a logical and necessary outgrowthof natural resource monitoring because theresults need to be used for making manage-ment decisions. Simply collecting data—or

even increasing our ecological understand-ing—will not necessarily help us reach ourultimate goal of informing managementpractices. As the Challenge aptly states,“Once this information is in our hands, wemust share it widely, so that child and adult,amateur and professional can benefit fromthe knowledge uncovered in these places”(NPS 1999).

The George Wright Forum48

The Challenge of Communicating Monitoring Resultsto Effect Change

Shawn L. Carter, Giselle Mora-Bourgeois, Todd R. Lookingbill, Tim J. B. Carruthers, and William C. Dennison

The Natural Resource Challenge legacySINCE ITS INCEPTION, the National Park Service (NPS) has been charged with preserving thenatural and cultural heritage of the United States for future generations. It is only recently,however, that the NPS has fully embraced the need to understand and describe the ecologyof parks. The infusion of an ecological perspective into the natural resource management ofthe national parks is what separates today’s park management from much of that which pre-ceded it (Sellars 1997). The guiding principles set forth by the agency’s National LeadershipCouncil as part of the Natural Resource Challenge (NPS 1999; hereafter “the Challenge”)shepherded these perspectives into present NPS culture and practice. Ultimately, theinsights, common goals, and collaborations we describe in this essay have all been made pos-sible by the vision and funding of the Challenge, the most recent high-water mark forembracing science within the NPS.

In this paper, we discuss a special collaboration enabled by the Challenge, in which aninventory and monitoring (I&M) network (National Capital Region Network; NCRN), aresearch learning center (Urban Ecology Research Learning Alliance; UERLA), and a coop-erative ecosystem studies unit (Chesapeake Watershed CESU) partner (University of Mary-land Center for Environmental Science; UMCES) coalesced around a common goal: to col-lect, analyze, and interpret data in national parks, and to promote learning and understand-ing. We describe a set of tools and principles for integrating and communicating science thatwe believe have broad utility in the practice of natural resource stewardship. Furthermore,we stress the iterative and collaborative nature of communicating results and how the processof communication leads to shared investment and stimulates new areas of scientific inquiry.

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 49

A shared goal of all the Challenge pro-grams (e.g., inventory and monitoring pro-grams, research learning centers, exoticplant management teams, and cooperativeecosystem studies units) is to integrate sci-ence and management. Achievement ofthese goals will greatly depend on the inter-nal capacity of individual parks to gain andshare knowledge. Thus, incorporating sci-entific information into management deci-sions requires not only the transfer of infor-mation in the form of organized, interpreteddata, but also a contextual framework thatembraces the experiences and values ofmanagers and the public. Now more thanever, we NPS heirs to the Challenge mustshow that we are acquiring the informationwe need, and that our ability to protectresources has improved. We believe that asound communication strategy, using inter-esting, synthetic, and contextualized prod-ucts, will not only serve managers’ needs,but also sustain public trust and promotepublic scientific literacy.

The three principles of science communication

The need to communicate monitoringresults led the NCRN and UERLA, in tan-dem, to collaborate with the Integration andApplication Network (IAN) based at theUMCES. The IAN is an interdisciplinaryteam of scientists working to transform rawdata into synthesized information and tocommunicate findings in effective ways topromote knowledge-building (Thomas etal. 2006). Each step of the process involveskey stakeholders and uses three basic prin-ciples of science communication: visualiza-tion, contextualization, and synthesis(Thomas et al. 2006). Below, we describehow these principles can be applied to helpprovide a comprehensive understanding of

monitoring results. In this paper, we illus-trate the application of these principles withreference to our shared experience in theNational Capital Region.

Visualization. The purpose of visuali-zation is to answer the questions, “who?”,“what?”, “where?”, and “when?” so peoplecan understand “why?” Visualization ele-ments include conceptual diagrams, maps,photos, extended legends, charts, andgraphs. Each type of visualization plays adifferent role in describing ecological phe-nomena; collectively, they create a compre-hensive explanation that no single chart,map, or photo can provide. Thus, theprocess of communicating science becomesless audience-specific, because all readersare likely to be able to view results in a for-mat they prefer.

Conceptual diagrams provide a partic-ularly effective means of combining diversetypes of information into an integrative sci-ence understanding. They are “thoughtdrawings” underpinned by actual data. Aconceptual diagram is similar in many waysto a traditional conceptual model (e.g., box-and-arrow model) but has a few fundamen-tal differences (Figure 1). Like conceptualmodels, these diagrams show importantcomponents of ecological systems. Theycan show processes, pathways, flows, andindicators, as well as interactions betweenthem. Also, conceptual diagrams caninclude several levels of complexity (similarto sub-models) that show particular phe-nomena in greater detail. A primary differ-ence between conceptual models and dia-grams is the use of visual elements. Whereasmodels generally employ standard geomet-ric shapes to depict drivers, stressors, regu-lators, and other elements, conceptual dia-grams use more intuitive symbols to repre-sent data and key results, with a suite of

symbols that either provide a graphical (i.e.,lifelike) representation or demonstrate anabstract process (e.g., arrows denotingflows).

Symbols are unambiguous and can beeasily shared, thereby promoting a consis-tent message among different programs orperspectives. Symbols can also be usedindependently of language and explana-tions; over time, a comprehensive collectionof symbols can essentially represent anunspoken language (see http://ian.um-ces.edu/symbols/). In addition to design,the placement, size, and number of symbolsused also convey meaning. Larger size andgreater numbers can indicate more signifi-cance, while placement provides geograph-ic context (see “Contextualization,” below).Both conceptual models and conceptualdiagrams are useful tools for defining eco-logical systems, but the intuitive, universalappeal of symbols improves understandingand attracts a broader audience to carefully

crafted conceptual diagrams.Contextualization. Providing appro-

priate context is essential for communicat-ing complex ecological monitoring data thathave many interrelationships in space andtime. Context adds to visualization by per-sonalizing an issue; different types of con-text can offer a unique understandingdepending on the audience’s perspective.We discuss three types of context: thematic,geographic, and indicator-based.

Conceptual diagrams provide neces-sary thematic context. They are stylized andoften transferable beyond the immediatestudy site. For example, a conceptual dia-gram of an urban environment has appealand applicability not only to the NationalCapital Region but also to other urbanparks throughout the country. We have con-structed ecological stories, or “vignettes,”that are pertinent to NCRN parks and alsohave broad appeal. A thematic overview ofstressors on water quality associated with

Integrating Science and Management

The George Wright Forum50

Figure 1. A comparison between a conceptual model (above) and a conceptual diagram (facingpage) for water quality. Both graphics are supported by data and show linkages among key indica-tors, processes, and threats. The judicious use of symbols and an extended legend in the diagramimprove understanding and aid visualization of the primary issues.

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 51

an urban setting provides a useful contextfor interpreting the monitoring data beingcollected in the NCRN (Figure 2).

Maps and photos with extended leg-ends provide geographic context. Goodmaps and appropriate photographs havetremendous value because they explicitlyaddress spatial scale. Using carefullyplaced, synthesized data on a map is one ofthe best ways to show relevance and integra-tion (Figure 3). Maps allow us to visuallyintegrate the human and natural realms.

Through maps, we can also speak to peo-ple’s sense of place, facilitating connectionsand allowing comparisons. Photographsprovide an additional sense of place thatmaps and graphs cannot capture. Photo-graphs also enhance unique perspectivesthat the casual visitor would not be able toexperience otherwise (e.g., aerial, underwa-ter, macro-scale, or historical; Figure 4).

Another form of context can be basedon environmental indicators themselves.Using an indicator-based context helps to

Figure 2. A theme-based conceptual diagram showing urban threats to water quality. While especial-ly relevant to the National Capital Region, processes and threats can easily be generalized to otherregions or parks.

Integrating Science and Management

The George Wright Forum52

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 53

Figure 3. Spatially explicit map for Prince William Forest Park. Symbols are used to locate and showrelative importance of park resources and threats. Broader geographic context is given by showing thebroader surrounding watershed (Potomac) and key physiographic zones (Piedmont and CoastalPlain).

address the continual challenge of definingwhat is being monitored (e.g., a vital sign)versus what is being measured (e.g., a met-ric). For example, if the indicator of interestis water quality, then many measures may beconsidered (e.g., dissolved oxygen, contam-inant levels, nutrients, or ionic concentra-tions). Thus, a broader suite of variablesoffers context to help readers to betterunderstand each indicator and how itrelates to other vital signs and a much larg-er ecological framework (Figure 5).

Synthesis. Decision-makers don’tneed all the data related to a subject; theyneed relevant data. This is why providingsynthesis is particularly important forachieving science-informed managementdecisions. More than an academic exercisein data analysis, proper synthesis is a “pro-cess of relating.” Several rules of thumb

shape our choices for how to synthesizedata:

• Naïve audiences are not stupid audi-ences. Credible science and technicaldetail underpin the collection andanalysis of monitoring data, and such afoundation is crucial to understandingresults. Effective communicationattempts to maintain high standards ofquality without sacrificing clarity.

• Technical detail is not necessarilyclutter. Details add value when appro-priately presented. On the other hand,simply adding more data and resultsdoes not equate to adding more value,insight, or significance.

• A simple conclusion is not a simpli-fied one. Audiences will appreciate thedistillation of results into meaningful

Integrating Science and Management

The George Wright Forum54

Figure 4. Aerial photos that portray geographic context show that adjacent development can impactnational parks within urban areas. Photo courtesy of Tom Paradis.

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 55

conclusions, but this does not require“dumbing down” the message.

• Jargon does not bolster scientificcredibility. Rather, the effective pres-entation of results relies on commonsense, logic, and reason.

Visual elements (e.g., charts, graphs,symbols, and extended legends) effectivelyaddress these guidelines and are essentialtools for relating results and meaning.

The internet offers a powerful oppor-tunity to blend verbal, quantitative, andqualitative elements to achieve visual andcognitive synthesis of data. Informationpathways can offer different types of contextfor synthesis: conceptual (theme-based),geographic (place-based), and/or indicator

(attribute-based). This approach to syn-thetic data offers the advantage of providingaccess to information in different ways,depending on the interests of the end user(Figure 6).

Theme-based synthesis uses conceptu-al diagrams to provide linkages between thedata and universal or generalized ecologicalconcepts (e.g., biogeochemical cycles, cli-mate variability, land use dynamics).Theme-based diagrams indicate common-alities among indicators or processes,describe broad-scale, complex ecologicalrelationships, and are more likely to drawupon data for a suite of indicators (e.g., airquality) than any particular attribute.

Place-based synthesis uses spatiallynested, georeferenced diagrams to define

Figure 5. An ecological assessment for water quality data at Rock Creek Park. Data shown representthe percentage of time when measurements fell within acceptable state regulatory standards.Individual measures of water quality are shown together in a spatially explicit form. This format conveysmeasure-specific information while also showing how measures relate to one another.

the spatial extent of the data being accessed.A major benefit of a place-based navigationpathway is that it allows users (e.g., parkmanagers) to easily determine where dataare being collected within a park, whichprovides context for related monitoring orresearch efforts.

Indicator-based synthesis selects dataaccording to a particular attribute of inter-est. Data may be accessed at hierarchicallevels depending on the needs of the user. Aperson searching for information on waterquality, for example, might find data on asuite of different indicators. Alternatively, aperson could also access data for a particu-lar indicator of interest (e.g., dissolved oxy-gen). Indicator data also can be cross-linked

to maps and conceptual diagrams usingsymbols to provide attribute informationfor specific locations (place-based) or con-ceptual ideas (theme-based).

Why the IAN-NPS model worksWe have purposefully adopted a series

of principles that will help us align the capa-bilities, interests, and needs of researchers,managers, and citizens. The result is a com-munication strategy that creates, verifies,and applies new knowledge. Our goal is notonly to transfer information in the form oforganized, interpreted data, but also—andmore importantly—to assist with thinkingabout that information and to build sharedunderstanding. The distinction we make

Integrating Science and Management

The George Wright Forum56

Figure 6. Overall framework for obtaining synthesized data using multiple navigation pathways. Parkconceptual diagrams are linked by a geographic map and appropriate monitoring indicators.Ecological themes (“vignettes”) become sub-models to illustrate park-based issues within a regionalcontext. Data support the entire framework and can be queried and summarized according to the nav-igational path chosen (after Dennison et al., in press).

Integrating Science and Management

Volume 24 • Number 2 (2007) 57

between transferring information and gen-erating knowledge is important. Generatingknowledge requires a conceptual frame-work that both incorporates existing dataand captures the experiences, values, andcontext of researchers, managers, and thepublic alike. We believe that it is the processof shared knowledge-building, rather thanthe simple transfer of information, thatimproves the capacity of managers to makeinformed decisions and therefore invokemore effective actions.

Our process for communicating sci-ence is a team effort, takes time, and pro-duces tangible results. Scoping workshopswith park resource managers and interpre-tive staff have been used to create and refineconceptual diagrams (Lookingbill et al., inpress). The NCRN has played a large rolein contributing synthesized data, theUERLA has worked closely with park staffto construct and understand the models,and UMCES, our academic partner, hasbeen instrumental in evaluating andimproving our models. Conceptual dia-grams have been invaluable for establishinga common understanding of resource val-ues and priorities. The very process ofdefining appropriate symbols for indica-tors, deciding where they should be placed

and how large they should be, and seekingagreement among those outside the park,though time-consuming, has created ashared vision for monitoring priorities inthe region. While driven to produce partic-ular products (e.g., conceptual diagrams,newsletters, booklets, posters, a website),we have found that the process of creatingthese products has generated and rein-forced an effective collaboration. This givesrise to our recommendation that each stageof a collaborative program should have aproduct focus to maintain and enhance thecollaborative process.

No single communication tool can pro-vide everything needed to promote in-formed environmental stewardship. Just aseach of our partners has brought an integralcomponent to our communication strategy,each product addresses slightly differentneeds based on the individual perspectivesof the greater public. Newsletters, booklets,posters, conceptual diagrams, charts, fig-ures, and websites are all valuable tools. Byincorporating key principles and guidelinesinto each of these products, a consistent,broad-reaching message can be communi-cated, providing proof positive that theNPS is living up to “the Challenge” of pre-serving our shared natural resource legacy.

AcknowledgmentsDiagrams and symbols presented in this paper were created or enhanced by the efforts

of Jane Hawkey, Lisa Florkowski, Tracey Saxby, Adrian Jones, and Jeff Runde. Previous ver-sions of this paper benefited from edits by Alice Wondrak-Biel.

ReferencesDennison, W.C., T.R. Lookingbill, T.J.B. Carruthers, J.M. Hawkey, and S.L. Carter. In press.

An eye-opening approach to developing and communicating integrated environmentalassessments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Lookingbill, T., R. Gardner, P. Townsend, and S. Carter. In press. Conceptual models ashypotheses in monitoring of urban landscapes. Environmental Management.

NPS [National Park Service ]. 1999. Natural Resource Challenge: The National Park Serv-ice’s Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources. Washington, D.C.: NPS. On-line atwww.nature.nps.gov/challenge/challengedoc/.

Sellars, R.W. 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press.

Thomas, J.E., T.A Saxby, T.J.B. Carruthers, E.G. Abal, and W.C. Dennison. 2006.Communicating Science Effectively. London: IWA Publishing.

Shawn L. Carter, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Center for UrbanEcology, 4598 MacArthur Boulevard NW, Washington, D.C. 20007; shawn_car-ter@nps.gov

Giselle Mora-Bourgeois, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Center for UrbanEcology, 4598 MacArthur Boulevard NW, Washington, D.C. 20007; giselle_mora-bourgeois@nps.gov

Todd R. Lookingbill, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environ-mental Science, 301 Braddock Road, Frostburg, Maryland 21532; tlooking@al.umces.edu

Tim J. B. Carruthers, Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Centerfor Environmental Science, P.O. Box 775, Cambridge, Maryland 21613; tcarruth@ca.umces.edu

William C. Dennison, Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Centerfor Environmental Science, P.O. Box 775, Cambridge, Maryland 21613; dennison@

Integrating Science and Management

The George Wright Forum58