Convergence research and actionable science through the lens of adaptive management

Abstract

Convergence research and actionable science are two newer terms within the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sciences. There are several definitions for each of these two terms depending on the source, but the definitions all encompass the same foundational concepts. Convergence research (also called convergence science) is an approach to solving complex or vexing research problems relevant to pressing scientific or societal needs through intentional and deep integration across different disciplines (National Research Council, 2014; National Science Foundation, 2024; NSF NCAR, 2024; Peek et al., 2020). Actionable science is solution-oriented, where the intended end users of the scientific knowledge are centered as collaborators throughout the research process, which results in the coproduction of useful and used information to inform actions (Bamzai-Dodson et al., 2021; Boyd, 2022; Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, 2024). These concepts (i.e., interdisciplinary, coproduction, and decision-oriented) are interrelated and central to convergence research and actionable science. The foundational concepts are not new to the environmental risk assessment and management domain, but the language used to capture these concepts is.

The relevance of convergence research and actionable science to environmental risk assessment and management is most tangible when viewed through the lens of an adaptive management framework (Wyant et al., 1995). Adaptive management is an iterative decision-making process that formalizes the qualitative social values of a community, given governing social constraints, such that relevant management options can be qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated against one another, reducing system uncertainties. An adaptive management framework, based on an integrated vulnerability, risk, and resilience assessment of climate change impacts (Cains, 2021), adapted from the works of Van den Brink et al. (2016) and Landis et al. (2017), is illustrated in Figure 1. This framework, which places research within the social context and constraints of the assessed socioecological system, is comprised of three main parts.

Part A, “Changes in Externalities,” envelops all framework components and represents the changes to the socioecological system that are beyond the direct control of regional or local management, such as climate change (Figure 1A). Defining “Changes in Externalities” frames the complex or vexing challenges to societal objectives that convergence research seeks to address, for example, managing regional- and community-level impacts of climate change.

Part B, “Public Engagement & Governance,” describes region-relevant social, cultural, and economic goals and defines assessment endpoints and criteria needed to evaluate those goals (Figure 1B), which are then assessed in Part C. Part B also defines the regional management constraints and priorities, such as management programs with incompatible goals or the allocation of funding. “Public Engagement and Governance” represents the solution-orientation of actionable research; for example, regional decision-makers and resource managers define and drive research problem formulation that is relevant to their needs.

Part C, “Research, Engineering, Assessment, & Management,” illustrates the iterative cycle of data collection and interpretation, multigoal assessments and sensitivity analyses, evaluation of management options, and the implementation of management plans. The evaluation of management options incorporates regional constraints and priorities through stakeholder-inclusive decision-making. This iterative cycle represents the integration of different disciplines and expertise of convergence research and the coproduction of useful information of actionable science.

For illustration purposes, take, for example, the coastal city of Charleston, SC, which is at the front line of climate change impacts. Charleston's defining feature, its relationship with water, is a double-edged sword. The coastal locality has produced a city with an economic dependence on ecosystem services ranging from sustenance fishing and shell fishing, commercial fishing, water-based recreational businesses to a robust year-round tourism sector driven by the region's rich culture and subtropical climate (i.e., regional goals and priorities, solution-oriented; Willis & Straka, 2017). However, the region's low-lying lands are also sources of vulnerability that ultimately expose the city to frequent flooding shocks (e.g., storm surges) and stressors (e.g., sea level rise) exacerbated by climate change and global warming (i.e., environmental challenge beyond regional management, complex problems; Morris & Renken, 2020; National Weather Service, 2023).

Over the past decade, several public, private, and nonprofit organizations and institutions within the Charleston Harbor Watershed have led decision-maker and community-inclusive and/or centered efforts to support and build regional resilience to the direct or indirect effects of climate change (i.e., stakeholder-inclusive decision-making; coproduction with end users as collaborators). These efforts include, but are not limited to, public events integrating the creative arts and the sciences to understand the local and cultural impacts of and responses to coastal flooding (e.g., EnoughPie's Awakening V: King Tides; Charleston City Paper, 2017); an “All Hazards Vulnerability & Risk Assessment” of City of Charleston's residents and assets impacted by environmental threats (e.g., sea level rise, extreme precipitation, extreme heat; City of Charleston, 2020); and Dutch Dialogues™ Charleston, a collaborative effort where national and international water experts partnered with local city, professional, academic, and community leaders to learn about and understand how Charleston can “live with water” while reducing risks to several societal objectives (e.g., human health and well-being, economic vitality, critical infrastructure, ecosystem services).

Not all applications of convergence research or actionable science will employ the full adaptive management framework; this is not a critique of those applications. Rather, the purpose of this overlay of the foundational concepts of convergence research and actionable science with components of the adaptive management framework is to highlight the points of shared understandings and interconnected scientific approaches focused on developing user-centered management solutions for environmental challenges. The local leaders involved in the Charleston resilience efforts did not collectively decide a priori to take an adaptive management approach, nor did they collectively decide to employ convergence research or actionable science. However, this ad hoc categorization of past and ongoing resilience efforts illustrates the complementary nature of the adaptive management framework, convergence research, and actionable science in addressing societal impacts of wicked environmental problems. Efforts to address these environmental challenges will produce research, papers, and reports that may not fall within traditional bounds of basic or applied research. IEAM is well suited to showcase convergence research and actionable science aimed at environmental challenges, as it already publishes the “science underpinning environmental decision-making and problem solving” (e.g., Beausoleil et al., 2022; Johns et al., 2016).

Mariana Cains: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.

The NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.