Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Perspective

Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction

Belinda Reyers, Jeanne L. Nel, Patrick J. O’Farrell, Nadia Sitas, and Deon C. Nel
PNAS June 16, 2015 112 (24) 7362-7368; first published June 16, 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414374112
Belinda Reyers
aNatural Resources and Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
bStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, S-10691, Stockholm, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: breyers@csir.co.za
Jeanne L. Nel
aNatural Resources and Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
cSustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, George 6530, South Africa;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick J. O’Farrell
aNatural Resources and Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nadia Sitas
aNatural Resources and Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
dDepartment of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland 7602, South Africa;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deon C. Nel
eWorld Wide Fund for Nature, Claremont 7735, South Africa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved April 23, 2015 (received for review September 16, 2014)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Achieving the policy and practice shifts needed to secure ecosystem services is hampered by the inherent complexities of ecosystem services and their management. Methods for the participatory production and exchange of knowledge offer an avenue to navigate this complexity together with the beneficiaries and managers of ecosystem services. We develop and apply a knowledge coproduction approach based on social–ecological systems research and assess its utility in generating shared knowledge and action for ecosystem services. The approach was piloted in South Africa across four case studies aimed at reducing the risk of disasters associated with floods, wildfires, storm waves, and droughts. Different configurations of stakeholders (knowledge brokers, assessment teams, implementers, and bridging agents) were involved in collaboratively designing each study, generating and exchanging knowledge, and planning for implementation. The approach proved useful in the development of shared knowledge on the sizable contribution of ecosystem services to disaster risk reduction. This knowledge was used by stakeholders to design and implement several actions to enhance ecosystem services, including new investments in ecosystem restoration, institutional changes in the private and public sector, and innovative partnerships of science, practice, and policy. By bringing together multiple disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders to jointly produce the knowledge needed to understand and manage a complex system, knowledge coproduction approaches offer an effective avenue for the improved integration of ecosystem services into decision making.

  • natural hazards
  • regulating services
  • resilience
  • participatory research
  • boundary work

Over the past decade, the global scientific community has developed the methods, data, and understanding to demonstrate and quantify many important links between nature and resilient societies and economies. This progress is clearly apparent in the abundance of publications, new scientific journals, datasets, frameworks, research funding, and initiatives that increasingly span the globe (1⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–7). Research efforts have begun to penetrate global policy and decision-making arenas: e.g., through the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. At subglobal levels, a number of initiatives linking ecosystem services with decision making now exist in the public and private sectors (8, 9). Despite these successes, many scientists and practitioners remain frustrated by the limited pace, scale, and replicability of decisions that successfully incorporate (or mainstream) ecosystem services and yield desired outcomes for human well-being and nature (9⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–16).

Several reasons have been put forward to explain the limited impact of ecosystem service science on decision making, ranging from specific gaps in the necessary scientific information and tools (17⇓–19) to more generic and transdisciplinary challenges associated with the complex social and political processes needed to catalyze action (10, 13, 20⇓⇓⇓⇓–25). Knowledge systems and knowledge-integration processes have been identified as central to navigating the social processes required to mainstream scientific data and understanding effectively into policy and decision making (26⇓–28). By focusing on what knowledge is produced, as well as how it is produced and exchanged, research is more likely to create knowledge for effective use in decision making (26, 29⇓–31). The need for new modes of knowledge production in research and decision making has led to more interdisciplinary and participatory processes that combine, interpret, and communicate knowledge from diverse disciplines and stakeholders (28, 29, 32⇓–34).

The coproduction of knowledge—defined as “the collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a defined problem and build an integrated or systems-oriented understanding of that problem” (32)—seems particularly relevant in the area of ecosystem services and decision making. Ecosystem services are produced by social–ecological systems. They are the emergent result of multiple ecosystem features (35), social factors such as tenure, access, and preferences (36, 37), and interactions between social and ecological components (38, 39). In addition, these interactions and benefit flows span multiple temporal and spatial scales (40⇓–42), presenting a mismatch with the usual time and spatial frames of decision making (43, 44).

Making choices amid such complexity represents a substantial hurdle to decision makers, and, as a result, ecosystem services are rarely adequately captured or taken into account during decision making (45). In fact, as scientists innovate with new methods and models to account for this complexity, analytical outputs become increasingly complex, and the gap between science and practice risks widening further (46, 47).

The challenge of integrating complex information into decision making poses an obstacle to mainstreaming ecosystem services into promising decision-making arenas. Disaster risk reduction, which aims to analyze and reduce the causal factors and impacts of natural hazards that lead to disasters, is one such arena (7, 48⇓–50). Ecosystem-service approaches for disaster risk reduction target the conservation and restoration of regulating ecosystem services to reduce the impacts of natural hazards like floods and droughts. Regulating services (e.g., water flow regulation and coastal protection) regulate the flow of energy and materials through ecosystems, mitigating and even preventing the impacts of natural hazards, thereby reducing the risk of disasters (36). However, the complexities inherent in regulating services and disaster risk reduction limit progress in the mainstreaming of ecosystem services. These complexities include the multiple and dynamic ecosystem features, processes, and cross-scale interactions associated with regulating services, as well as the social–ecological drivers, vulnerabilities, consequences, and actions involved in reducing the risk of disasters (40, 51, 52).

Acknowledging the complexity of regulating services and disaster risk reduction, by bringing together multiple disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders to collectively produce the knowledge needed to adequately understand and manage a social–ecological system, seems to hold much potential for improved integration of ecosystem-service knowledge into decision making (53). To demonstrate and explore the effectiveness of knowledge coproduction methods for mainstreaming ecosystem services, we develop, pilot, and evaluate a knowledge coproduction approach across four case studies of natural hazards in South Africa. We describe the case studies briefly and demonstrate the approach using experiences drawn from the case studies. Outcomes of applying the approach are then synthesized to reflect on the effectiveness of the methods used and to advance the theory and practice of knowledge coproduction approaches for mainstreaming ecosystem services.

Case Studies

All four case studies are located in the Southern Cape of South Africa, a mountainous area in the fynbos biome experiencing rapid urban and agricultural development (Fig. 1). The region receives rainfall throughout the year, with peaks in March and October accompanied by cutoff low pressure systems associated with extreme weather events. The area’s rainfall pattern, together with its mountainous topography, makes it prone to flash floods interspersed by long droughts. High rainfall events are often accompanied by large storm waves, resulting in severe coastal flooding, especially if estuary mouths are closed. Fynbos is a fire-prone vegetation type that, during periods of hot, dry weather, can result in large wildfires. The area is widely infested with nonnative invasive shrubs and trees that induce declines in water availability and disrupt fire regimes (54). The extreme weather of this region results in a large number of disasters from floods, wildfires, droughts, and storm waves, evidenced by substantial insurance claims and damage costs (55). These costs motivated stakeholders from the public and private sector, in collaboration with research and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to develop four case studies each focused on a particular natural hazard. The four collaborative case studies were established to discover the causes of, and possible responses to, the observed increases in natural hazards (See Table 1 and ref. 56 for details on the case studies).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Location of four case studies on flood, storm wave, drought, and wildfire in the Southern Cape of South Africa. The map depicts the distribution of current land use and is transposed over a digital elevation model for illustrative purposes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Description of location, context, rationale, and participants of the four collaborative case studies where the knowledge coproduction approach was applied

A Knowledge Coproduction Approach for Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services

We developed an approach that aimed to coproduce credible and salient knowledge on the role of ecosystem services in mitigating natural hazards and their impacts. Participatory approaches and frameworks used in the study and management of social–ecological systems (57) and vulnerability and resilience frameworks (58, 59), as well as operational frameworks for mainstreaming ecosystem services (10), provided useful starting points from which to design an approach for piloting across all four case studies.

The resulting process (Fig. 2) took each case study through three stages: (i) codesign of the project, (ii) knowledge coproduction, and (iii) collaborative planning for implementation. All three stages were participatory, involving different configurations of participants drawn from research organizations, NGOs, public and private sectors, parastatals, and civil society. Table 1 summarizes the participants into four main groups involved: (i) knowledge brokers skilled in leading, facilitating, and translating the process of knowledge coproduction, (ii) assessment teams of technical experts who collate data, develop scenarios and models, and review outputs, (iii) implementers from the private and public sector and civil society who plan and implement actions, and (iv) bridging agents who interface between the research and implementation contexts. The four groups were often overlapping and included new members as the case study developed and new knowledge was gained. Furthermore, in line with South Africa’s three spheres of government (national, provincial, and local), these four groups included representatives capturing specific legislative, coordination, or implementation powers and functions at each scale.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Outline of the knowledge coproduction approach developed and evaluated across four case studies. The approach moves through three phases from codesigning the project, coproducing the knowledge using a social–ecological systems (SES) approach with scenario planning, and finally collaboratively designing and implementing responses to manage ecosystem services to mitigate natural hazard impacts. The groups of participants in each phase are indicated and include knowledge brokers leading and facilitating the case study, assessment teams of technical experts, implementers from public and private sectors, and bridging agents who interface between the research and implementation contexts.

Codesigning Projects for Knowledge Exchange

The first stage of the approach (Fig. 2) involved knowledge brokers, defined as individuals who “absorb complex ambivalent messages from diverse sources including technical, commercial and legislative developments and translate them into terms that can be understood and acted upon” (60). These individuals included high-level representatives responsible for initiating the projects, drawn from research institutions (academic and government), NGOs, and private and public sectors (Table 1). Private sector knowledge brokers were senior executives of a national insurer (in the case studies of flood, wildfire, and storm waves), and a large international brewery (in the case study on drought).

These knowledge brokers were involved throughout the case study: designing, coordinating, and facilitating the process of joint knowledge production, translating the findings for potential implementers, developing collective response strategies, and channeling these strategies back into their institutions for implementation. Several knowledge brokers were scientists, able to participate, guide, and integrate the findings in the assessment teams. Knowledge brokers were also well-versed and networked into specific implementation contexts relevant to each case study and thus were able to identify opportunities, partners, or gaps for implementation. Although the exact configuration of knowledge brokers differed across case studies, some individuals were involved in all case studies. This configuration of knowledge brokers was important in the identification of synergies and cross-cutting responses: e.g., revisions to national disaster management policy.

Knowledge Coproduction Using Social–Ecological Systems and Scenarios

The knowledge coproduction phase brought together knowledge brokers and a larger assessment team of technical experts to generate new knowledge on the causes, consequences, and possible responses to natural hazards. Technical experts were drawn from across research, NGO, public, and private institutions to represent multiple knowledge systems, as well as to involve all stakeholders in a transdisciplinary process aimed at producing and exchanging knowledge for disaster risk reduction (26, 30). The experts contributed their data and understanding to the coproduction process. This phase was iterative through the participatory engagement, review, and revision of knowledge and products. It was also adaptive to opportunities and changes in the implementation context. Although the process varied across case studies depending on context and inputs from the codesign phase, we highlight three central elements that were consistent across case studies (Fig. 2): the equal participation of a broad range of technical experts, the adoption of a social–ecological systems approach, and the use of scenario planning to facilitate knowledge coproduction.

The choice of a social–ecological systems approach aimed to foster a joint understanding of the interacting social and ecological features, drivers, and consequences of natural hazards. It further aimed to help expand from the narrow and mostly social focus of disaster management in the region with its emphasis on built infrastructure, human capacity, and institutional components. This more integrated view enabled participants to collectively create a conceptual model of the system and its vulnerability to natural hazards, including the identification of key social and ecological components, ecosystem services, stakeholders, drivers of change, and institutional arrangements (Table S1). These conceptual models helped navigate the complexity of information while developing a consensus understanding of the contribution of regulating ecosystem services, identifying priority drivers of change in these services, and highlighting stakeholders responsible for managing these drivers of change (Table 1 and Table S1).

The flood case study identified vegetation cover changes associated with forestry clearing practices, the effects of wildfire on soil hardening, and estuary berm height as important drivers of change in the flood regulation services in the area. Similarly, in the fire case study, wildfire risks and impacts were found to be linked to infestations of nonnative invasive plants, substantially altering natural biomass, fuel loads, and fire processes in forestry and urban areas. These nonnative plants are intensive water users and linked to reductions in groundwater recharge and discharge processes associated with drought mitigation services in the drought case study. The erosion of coastal foredunes and coastal hardening from development were identified as main drivers of declines in the coastal protection services mitigating impacts of storm waves in the storm-wave case study.

The coproduction phase used a combination of participatory approaches, including interviews, meetings, reviews of literature and data from research and practice, policy analysis, and collaborative field trips. These joint activities were seen as crucial for knowledge exchange and building ongoing relationships for future work.

Scenario planning, a popular tool used across a range of domains to learn and plan for uncertain and complex futures, was a central focus of the coproduction approach (57, 61). Scenarios are plausible explorations of the future and were particularly useful in working with stakeholders to formulate responses to complex and unexpected events associated with natural hazards. In our tailoring and testing of the approach, we developed a baseline scenario of current or natural ecosystem conditions, and two scenarios to examine moderate and severe drivers of change to ecosystem features of relevance for regulating services (Table S1). For comparative purposes, scenarios of future climate change were also used (based on the A2 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios scenario of enhanced anthropogenic forcing) (56).

There is a wide diversity of qualitative and quantitative techniques for use in scenario planning. Quantitative process-based and statistical models were used in the four case studies to quantify changes in intensity of natural hazard impacts across scenarios (Table S1) (56). Fig. 3 summarizes the results of the scenario modeling indicating a 4% and 10% increase in the intensity of large floods (defined as floods with a current 1:100-y return period) for moderate and severe changes in vegetation cover in the catchment. Fireline intensity showed increases of 101% and 280% for moderate and severe infestations of nonnative plants. An approximate halving of flows due to degradation of groundwater recharge processes was found in scenarios examining spread of water use-intensive nonnative plants, with a 46% exacerbation in low flows associated with moderate droughts and 51% exacerbation in extreme low flows found during severe droughts. Moderate and severe erosion rates of beach slope from coastal hardening resulted in a 28% and 157% increase in extreme wave run-up height events (currently seen in 1:100-y return period) (Table S1 and Fig. 3). An empowering result from these codeveloped models was the finding that the natural hazard consequences of ecosystem change (where stakeholders can take action) were often as great as, or greater than, the consequences of the climate change scenario (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Changes in natural hazard intensity across codeveloped scenarios of future ecosystem change in four case studies of flood, wildfire, sea storm, and drought in the Southern Cape of South Africa. Changes in intensity are measured for flood and sea storm as increases in daily flows (m3) and wave run-up height (m) compared with flows and run-up height found during an existing 1:100-y event. Changes in wildfire intensity are measured as increases in fireline intensity (kW⋅m–1) whereas drought intensity is measured as decreases in monthly flows (million m3) of droughts at 70% and 90% probability of exceedance on the flow duration curve (defined here as low flows and extreme low flows, respectively). Changes in intensity are extracted from ref. 56 and reflected for synthesis purposes as a percentage of the baseline scenario intensity using a logarithmic scale. Impacts of a future climate scenario (56) are also depicted.

Collaboratively Designing Actions for Disaster Risk Reduction

The resulting shared knowledge on natural hazards and their drivers of change was fed into the final phase of the process to codesign responses needed to mitigate impacts (Fig. 2). This phase involved knowledge brokers, implementing agencies, and bridging agents. It used the important drivers of ecosystem change identified in the previous step to codesign necessary actions and outcomes, with relevant stakeholders responsible for managing the drivers and implementing the actions (Table 1).

Currently implemented responses include new investments in ecosystem services and shifts in policy and practice, as well as new collaborations in the area of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. For example, a multimillion dollar investment has been made by South African National Parks to clear nonnative invasive plants to reduce wildfire risk in and around a large protected area embedded in the urban matrix of the region. A similar large investment by the brewery company unlocked funds and new employment opportunities in clearing nonnative invasive trees from important catchments supplying water to the hops farms. A codesigned investment between businesses and an environmental NGO in the region to restore foredunes has also begun. Policy shifts incorporate the invited contribution of inputs into national disaster management legislation and budgeting to allow for proactive ecosystem-based management for disaster management.

The codesign of responses went beyond identifying who is mandated (but often unable) to manage the drivers, to design interventions needed to build additional skills and support for the responsible institutions, and to identify possible partners with resources and knowledge to help implement these interventions. For example, a newly expanded membership of the Southern Cape Fire Protection Association now includes both public and private sector agencies cooperating around the installation of strategic fire belts and fuel reduction strategies. In addition the brewery appointed a representative into public sector water-resource planning processes. Additional new collaborations to improve data, tools, and capacity for flood risk assessment and development planning also emerged: e.g., the Eden Disaster Resilience Learning Network was established to coordinate ecosystem-based approaches to disaster risk reduction. It is chaired by the provincial authority, with members from provincial, district, and local levels from environment and disaster risk reduction, as well as national and provincial conservation authorities, NGOs, scientists, and corporate partners in the insurance, timber, and beverage sectors. A newly launched process to decentralize insurance underwriters will also hopefully build new partnerships with local authorities involved in urban, coastal, and disaster management.

Bridging agents played a substantial role in this phase of the case studies, not only linking the knowledge coproduction to implementing agencies and opportunities, but also in ensuring postproject sustainability. The time frames of implementation are frequently cited as a challenge to successful project impact because funding and support frequently finish before implementation begins to take effect. For several of these case studies, the involvement of bridging agents will help continue this support beyond the time frames of the funded projects. Examples include the chairing of new collaborations by provincial officials, the support by parastatals in processes to change legislation, new streams of funding from the private sector, and the appointment of researchers into advisory roles within the public and private sector.

Reflections on the Approach

Knowledge coproduction is increasingly becoming central to many aspects of sustainability science and policy (32, 62⇓–64). This model of knowledge exchange is linked to successes in building trust, capacity, knowledge flows, and learning within stakeholder groups, as well as to improvements in outputs and outcomes of applied research processes (34). The approach used here seems to have been successful in collectively developing new understanding and action. It proved effective at integrating knowledge about ecosystem services into the way stakeholders frame the causes of natural hazards and possible responses. In particular, the approach clarified the systems nature of natural hazards and the contribution of ecosystem services within these systems in determining natural hazard impacts. It was successful at broadening the focus from climate change to make clear the consequences of ecosystem change on natural hazard impacts. This increased awareness of the importance of ecosystem services in the area is evidenced in a survey of decision makers in the case studies (65).

The ability to reframe issues and broaden options for management is central to effective knowledge integration (26) and is evidenced in several recent communications involving private sector participants (e.g., ref. 66) and new high-level collaborations developed among implementing agencies. An example is the recently formed Business Adopt a Municipality—a forum set up by the insurance company and supported by the South African Local Government Association—for businesses to support local authorities in managing natural hazards. Further evidence of the impact of this approach is the range of novel ecosystem-based responses described above that were designed and implemented by participants. These actions are unlikely to have emerged in the absence of the collaborative case studies.

The knowledge coproduction approach helped move the case studies into deeply integrated learning processes where new knowledge was collectively produced, researchers and stakeholders shared learning experiences, interactions were facilitated, purposive, and deliberate, and all stakeholders had equal power to provide insight and take action (31). This shared learning was evident in the practitioner community, but also among researchers where stakeholder knowledge, on factors such as budgetary processes in disaster management and business operations of centralized insurance underwriting, was used to codesign responses. The approach was able to manage the boundaries between research and practice by the involvement of all stakeholders, their knowledge, and data in the development of collaborative products, such as conceptual models of natural hazards, scenarios, and models of future impacts. These products or “boundary objects” were based on credible, legitimate, and salient knowledge and proved important in making the case for ecosystem conservation and restoration (25, 26, 30).

The social–ecological systems perspective of the approach helped identify systemic responses involving multiple stakeholders, sectors, actions, and beneficiaries. Some responses targeted a common driver of change linked to multiple natural hazards: e.g., invasive nonnative plants. Others focused on delivering multiple benefits by addressing social and ecological vulnerability. For example, hops farmers partnered with a job-creation program to clear nonnative invasive plants to achieve multiple benefits: improved water yield, decreased water pumping costs, improved off-season job creation for vulnerable communities of seasonal harvesters, and improved protection of priority biodiversity areas.

A popular response across projects was the development of new partnerships that pooled resources held by the private sector, civil society, and research organizations with the authorities mandated to implement the work. These partnership responses also enabled the movement away from the existing pattern of coping with natural hazards, to longer term, proactive responses that explored adaptation options targeted at reducing the sensitivity and exposure of the systems to natural hazards (59, 67). In many of these responses, enhancements of regulating services were a priority. Such responses are often referred to as ecosystem-based adaptation approaches to climate change (7, 52).

Several partnerships took the form of learning networks between different stakeholder groups. This focus on learning, often referred to as social learning, has been highlighted by several authors as a key element in building the adaptive capacity and resilience needed to deal with change and uncertainty (59, 68⇓–70). Such learning has been shown to be particularly useful in bringing together different knowledge systems and approaches necessary for developing an understanding of the system and designing management responses (28, 31, 71). It has also enabled ongoing learning about the system and its responses to management interventions (32, 34). This learning, in turn, facilitates a more adaptive management approach that adjusts responses as new knowledge is developed and actively shapes future change (72, 73). This development also reflects a growing movement away from sector- and stakeholder-specific approaches, toward systemic disaster risk reduction that focuses on collective management of vulnerability in the landscape (68).

Conclusion

Efforts to reduce the risks and impacts of natural hazards present potential opportunities to mainstream ecosystem services into decisions. Across the four case studies, we found that a knowledge coproduction approach helped navigate complex information to develop an integrated understanding of the natural hazard and its drivers and impacts, among a broad range of stakeholders. The approach supports strongly integrated learning between researchers and practitioners, where communication, translation, and mediation are fundamental processes of the interaction, supported by intermediary (or boundary) organizations able to create and sustain mutually beneficial problem-solving activities (26, 27, 60). This “boundary work,” in turn, provided the necessary credibility and legitimacy needed to support proactive strategies to manage and reduce natural hazard impacts (74, 75). By moving to a broader reframing of the social and ecological determinants of natural hazard impacts, the role of ecosystems and their services were made visible. Furthermore, the suite of responses identified was substantially diversified, and stakeholders became more empowered to act locally. These responses require novel partnerships for combining resources, mandates, knowledge, and values held by different stakeholder groups to ensure ongoing coproduction of knowledge and action.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants in the case studies for their time and contributions, and Janis Smith for developing Fig. 1 of the study area. The collaborative case studies were made possible by funding and support from partners including the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the World Wide Fund for Nature (South Africa), Santam Limited, South African Breweries, and the United Nations Environment Program and the Global Environment Facility through the Project for Ecosystem Services.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: breyers{at}csir.co.za.
  • Author contributions: B.R., J.L.N., P.J.O., N.S., and D.C.N. designed research; B.R., J.L.N., N.S., and D.C.N. performed research; B.R., J.L.N., and D.C.N. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; B.R. and J.L.N. analyzed data; and B.R., J.L.N., P.J.O., and D.C.N. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1414374112/-/DCSupplemental.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
    (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Island Press, Washington, DC)
    .
  2. ↵
    1. Kumar P
    (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (Earthscan, London)
    .
  3. ↵
    1. Tallis H, et al.
    (2012) A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62:977–986
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Costanza R,
    2. Kubiszewski I
    (2012) The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):16–25
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Seppelt R,
    2. Dormann C,
    3. Eppink F,
    4. Lautenbach S,
    5. Schmidt S
    (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Fisher JA, et al.
    (2014) Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosyst Serv 7:34–45
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Jones HP,
    2. Hole DG,
    3. Zavaleta ES
    (2012) Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2:504–509
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Goldman RL,
    2. Tallis H
    (2009) A critical analysis of ecosystem services as a tool in conservation projects: The possible perils, the promises,and the partnerships. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:63–78
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ruckelshaus M, et al.
    (2015) Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ 115:11–21
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Cowling RM, et al.
    (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9483–9488
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Nahlik AM,
    2. Kentula ME,
    3. Fennessy MS,
    4. Landers DH
    (2012) Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol Econ 77:27–35
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Norgaard RB
    (2010) Ecosystem services : From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Sitas N,
    2. Prozesky HE,
    3. Esler KJ,
    4. Reyers B
    (2013) Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming ecosystem services in development planning: Perspectives from a landscape level. Landscape Ecol 29(8):1315–1331
    .
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Laurans Y,
    2. Rankovic A,
    3. Billé R,
    4. Pirard R,
    5. Mermet L
    (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage 119:208–219
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Honey-Rosés J,
    2. Pendleton LH
    (2013) A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 5:160–162
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. De Groot RS,
    2. Alkemade R,
    3. Braat L,
    4. Hein L,
    5. Willemen L
    (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Kremen C,
    2. Ostfeld RS
    (2005) A call to ecologists: Measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 3(10):540–548
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Daily GC, et al.
    (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Nelson E, et al.
    (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Dalal-Clayton B,
    2. Bass S
    (2009) The Challenges of Environmental Mainstreaming Institutions and Decisions (International Institute for Environment and Development, London)
    .
  21. ↵
    1. Reyers B, et al.
    (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol 24(4):957–965
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Geels FW
    (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Transitions 1:24–40
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Hirsch Hadorn G,
    2. Bradley D,
    3. Pohl C,
    4. Rist S,
    5. Wiesmann U
    (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. van Wyk E,
    2. Roux DJ,
    3. Drackner M,
    4. McCool SF
    (2008) The impact of scientific information on ecosystem management: Making sense of the contextual gap between information providers and decision makers. Environ Manage 41(5):779–791
    .
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Mollinga PP
    (2010) Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop Sci 50(Suppl 1):S1–S9
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Cash DW, et al.
    (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8086–8091
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Fazey I, et al.
    (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Change 25:204–220
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Tengö M,
    2. Brondizio ES,
    3. Elmqvist T,
    4. Malmer P,
    5. Spierenburg M
    (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43(5):579–591
    .
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Pohl C, et al.
    (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Clark WC, et al.
    (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Van Kerkhoff L,
    2. Lebel L
    (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31(1):445–477
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Armitage D,
    2. Berkes F,
    3. Dale A,
    4. Kocho-Schellenberg E,
    5. Patton E
    (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21(3):995–1004
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Trimble M,
    2. Berkes F
    (2013) Participatory research towards co-management: Lessons from artisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay. J Environ Manage 128:768–778
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Berkes F
    (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90(5):1692–1702
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Díaz S, et al.
    (2007) Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(52):20684–20689
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
    (2003) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being—A Framework for Assessment (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC)
    .
  37. ↵
    1. Ernstson H
    (2013) The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 109:7–17
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Reyers B, et al.
    (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–273
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Huntsinger L,
    2. Oviedo J
    (2014) Ecosystem services are social–ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: The case of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol Soc 19(1):8
    .
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Rodríguez JP, et al.
    (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28
    .
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Carpenter SR, et al.
    (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(5):1305–1312
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Nedkov S,
    2. Burkhard B
    (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services: Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Raudsepp-Hearne C,
    2. Peterson GD,
    3. Bennett EM
    (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11):5242–5247
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Bennett EM,
    2. Peterson GD,
    3. Gordon LJ
    (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Cash DW, et al.
    (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8
    .
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Smajgl A,
    2. Ward J
    (2013) A framework to bridge science and policy in complex decision making arenas. Futures 52:52–58
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    1. Agrawal A,
    2. Chhatre A
    (2011) Against mono-consequentialism: Multiple outcomes and their drivers in social–ecological systems. Glob Environ Change 21(1):1–3
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Munang R,
    2. Thiaw I,
    3. Alverson K,
    4. Liu J,
    5. Han Z
    (2013) The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:47–52
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Das S,
    2. Vincent JR
    (2009) Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(18):7357–7360
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Shepard CC,
    2. Crain CM,
    3. Beck MW
    (2011) The protective role of coastal marshes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27374
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Simonit S,
    2. Perrings C
    (2011) Sustainability and the value of the “regulating” services: Wetlands and water quality in Lake Victoria. Ecol Econ 70:1189–1199
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Thomalla F,
    2. Downing T,
    3. Spanger-Siegfried E,
    4. Han G,
    5. Rockström J
    (2006) Reducing hazard vulnerability: Towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters 30(1):39–48
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Tàbara JD,
    2. Chabay I
    (2013) Coupling human information and knowledge systems with social–ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability. Environ Sci Policy 28:71–81
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. van Wilgen BW,
    2. Reyers B,
    3. Le Maitre DC,
    4. Richardson DM,
    5. Schonegevel L
    (2008) A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. J Environ Manage 89(4):336–349
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. RADAR (Risk and Development Annual Review)
    (2010) Western Cape Risk and Development Annual Review Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme (University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa)
    .
  56. ↵
    1. Nel JL, et al.
    (2014) Natural hazards in a changing world: A case for ecosystem-based management. PLoS ONE 9(5):e95942
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Walker B, et al.
    (2002) Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv Ecol 6(1):314
    .
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Turner BL 2nd, et al.
    (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8074–8079
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Chapin FS 3rd, et al.
    (2010) Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25(4):241–249
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Fazey I, et al.
    (2013) Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40:19–36
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    1. Peterson GD,
    2. Cumming GS,
    3. Carpenter SR
    (2003) Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Clark WC,
    2. Dickson NM
    (2003) Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8059–8061
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Carpenter SR, et al.
    (2012) Program on ecosystem change and society: An international research strategy for integrated social–ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(1):134–138
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Mauser W, et al.
    (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Sitas N,
    2. Prozesky H,
    3. Esler K,
    4. Reyers B
    (2014) Exploring the gap between ecosystem service research and management in development planning. Sustainability 6(6):3802–3824
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    1. UNEP FI
    (2011) Insurance in a Changing Risk Landscape: Local Lessons from the Southern Cape of South Africa (United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, Geneva), DTI/1478/GE. Available at www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/insurance_changing_risk_landscape.pdf
    .
  67. ↵
    1. Turner BL 2nd, et al.
    (2003) Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8080–8085
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Brown K,
    2. Westaway E
    (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: Lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:321–342
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    1. Adger WN,
    2. Hughes TP,
    3. Folke C,
    4. Carpenter SR,
    5. Rockström J
    (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737):1036–1039
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Buizer J,
    2. Jacobs K,
    3. Cash D
    (2012) Making short-term climate forecasts useful: Linking science and action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0900518107
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Roux DJ, et al.
    (2011) From scorecard to social learning: A reflective coassessment approach for promoting multiagency cooperation in Natural Resource Management. Ecol Soc 16(11):24
    .
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Folke C,
    2. Hahn T,
    3. Olsson P,
    4. Norberg J
    (2005) Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441–473
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Armitage DR, et al.
    (2009) Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Berkes F,
    2. Colding J,
    3. Folke C
    (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK)
    .
  75. ↵
    1. Turner BL
    (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Glob Environ Change 20:570–576
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Coproducing ecosystem service knowledge and action
Belinda Reyers, Jeanne L. Nel, Patrick J. O’Farrell, Nadia Sitas, Deon C. Nel
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2015, 112 (24) 7362-7368; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1414374112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Coproducing ecosystem service knowledge and action
Belinda Reyers, Jeanne L. Nel, Patrick J. O’Farrell, Nadia Sitas, Deon C. Nel
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2015, 112 (24) 7362-7368; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1414374112
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 112 (24)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Sustainability Science

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Case Studies
    • A Knowledge Coproduction Approach for Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services
    • Codesigning Projects for Knowledge Exchange
    • Knowledge Coproduction Using Social–Ecological Systems and Scenarios
    • Collaboratively Designing Actions for Disaster Risk Reduction
    • Reflections on the Approach
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
Yellow emoticons
Learning the language of facial expressions
Aleix Martinez explains why facial expressions often are not accurate indicators of emotion.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490