02399nas a2200277   4500008004100000245006300041210006200104260000900166490000700175520157000182653002701752653001501779653002901794653003501823653001601858653001201874653003001886653001801916653001701934100002301951700001901974700002201993700002402015700002602039856005602065       2017                        eng d00aPublic access to spatial data on private-land conservation0 aPublic access to spatial data on privateland conservation  c20170 v223 aInformation is critical for environmental governance. The rise of digital mapping has the potential to advance private-land conservation by assisting with conservation planning, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. However, privacy concerns from private landowners and the capacity of conservation entities can influence efforts to track spatial data. We examine public access to geospatial data on conserved private lands and the reasons data are available or unavailable. We conduct a qualitative comparative case study based on analysis of maps, documents, and interviews. We compare four conservation programs involving different conservation tools: conservation easements (the growing but incomplete National Conservation Easement Database), regulatory mitigation (gaps in tracking U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service&#8217;s endangered species habitat mitigation), contract payments (lack of spatial data on U.S. Department of Agriculture&#8217;s Conservation Reserve Program due to Farm Bill restrictions), and property-tax incentives (online mapping of Wisconsin&#8217;s managed forest tax program). These cases illuminate the capacity and privacy reasons for current incomplete or inaccessible spatial data and the politics of mapping private land. If geospatial data are to contribute fully to planning, evaluation, and accountability, we recommend improving information system capacity, enhancing learning networks, and reducing legal and administrative barriers to information access, while balancing the right to information and the right to privacy.10aconservation easements10acost share10aEnvironmental governance10aGeographic Information Systems10aland trusts10aprivacy10aprivate-land conservation10atax incentive10atransparency1 aRissman, Adena, R.1 aOwley, Jessica1 aL'Roe, Andrew, W.1 aMorris, Amy, Wilson1 aWardropper, Chloe, B.  uhttps://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art24/02409nas a2200241   4500008004100000020001400041245007900055210006900134260001400203300001200217490000700229520164400236653002301880653002501903653003001928653001901958653002301977653002502000100002302025700002202048700002602070856007102096       2017                        eng d  a1462-901100aPublic support for carrot, stick, and no-government water quality policies0 aPublic support for carrot stick and nogovernment water quality p  c2017/10//  a82 - 890 v763 aPublic support for environmental policy provides an important foundation for democratic governance. Numerous policy innovations may improve nonpoint source pollution, but little research has examined which types of individuals are likely to support various runoff reduction policies. We conducted a household mail survey of 1136 residents in southern Wisconsin. In general, residents were more likely to support water quality policies if they were communitarians, egalitarians, concerned about water pollution, and perceived water quality as poor. The majority of respondents somewhat to strongly supported all of the seven proposed water quality policies, but opposed relying on voluntary action without government involvement on farms. Residents had higher support for incentives and market-based approaches (carrot policies) than regulation and taxes (stick policies). A more complicated pattern emerged in within-subject comparisons of residents’ views of carrot and stick approaches. Stick approaches polarized respondents by decreasing support among people with individualistic worldviews, while slightly increasing support among people with communitarian worldviews. Residents with an agricultural occupation were more likely to support voluntary, non-governmental approaches for reducing agricultural runoff, and were also more likely to support regulation for reducing urban lawn runoff. This research highlights the dominant role of cultural worldviews and the secondary roles of water pollution concern, perceived water quality, and self-interest in explaining support for diverse policies to reduce nonpoint source pollution.10aCultural cognition10aEnvironmental policy10aNonpoint source pollution10aPolicy support10aPublic preferences10aWater quality policy1 aRissman, Adena, R.1 aKohl, Patrice, A.1 aWardropper, Chloe, B.  uhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111630740701818nas a2200325   4500008004100000245007300041210006900114260001500183490000800198520083700206100001801043700002601061700002201087700002301109700001701132700002301149700002001172700002701192700001801219700002401237700001601261700001901277700001701296700002301313700002201336700002901358700002001387700002101407856006401428       2015                        eng d00aPlanetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet0 aPlanetary boundaries Guiding human development on a changing pla  c2015/02/130 v3473 aThe planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.1 aSteffen, Will1 aRichardson, Katherine1 aRockström, Johan1 aCornell, Sarah, E.1 aFetzer, Ingo1 aBennett, Elena, M.1 aBiggs, Reinette1 aCarpenter, Stephen, R.1 ade Vries, Wim1 ade Wit, Cynthia, A.1 aFolke, Carl1 aGerten, Dieter1 aHeinke, Jens1 aMace, Georgina, M.1 aPersson, Linn, M.1 aRamanathan, Veerabhadran1 aReyers, Belinda1 aSörlin, Sverker  uhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.abstract02498nas a2200373   4500008004100000245008600041210006900127260000900196490000700205520142900212653002401641653001201665653002301677653001901700653001501719653001001734653002001744653001501764653001401779100002701793700002001820700001701840700003001857700002001887700002001907700001901927700001901946700002301965700001901988700001702007700001902024700002602043856005502069       2015                        eng d00aPlausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA0 aPlausible futures of a socialecological system Yahara watershed   c20150 v203 aAgricultural watersheds are affected by changes in climate, land use, agricultural practices, and human demand for energy, food, and water resources. In this context, we analyzed the agricultural, urbanizing Yahara watershed (size: 1345 km&#178;, population: 372,000) to assess its responses to multiple changing drivers. We measured recent trends in land use/cover and water quality of the watershed, spatial patterns of 10 ecosystem services, and spatial patterns and nestedness of governance. We developed scenarios for the future of the Yahara watershed by integrating trends and events from the global scenarios literature, perspectives of stakeholders, and models of biophysical drivers and ecosystem services. Four qualitative scenarios were created to explore plausible trajectories to the year 2070 in the watershed&#8217;s social-ecological system under different regimes: no action on environmental trends, accelerated technological development, strong intervention by government, and shifting values toward sustainability. Quantitative time-series for 2010&#8211;2070 were developed for weather and land use/cover during each scenario as inputs to model changes in ecosystem services. Ultimately, our goal is to understand how changes in the social-ecological system of the Yahara watershed, including management of land and water resources, can build or impair resilience to shifting drivers, including climate.10aalternative futures10aclimate10aecosystem services10aeutrophication10agovernance10alakes10aland-use change10aphosphorus10ascenarios1 aCarpenter, Stephen, R.1 aBooth, Eric, G.1 aGillon, Sean1 aKucharik, Christopher, J.1 aLoheide, Steven1 aMase, Amber, S.1 aMotew, Melissa1 aQiu, Jiangxiao1 aRissman, Adena, R.1 aSeifert, Jenny1 aSoylu, Evren1 aTurner, Monica1 aWardropper, Chloe, B.  uhttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss2/art10/01781nas a2200121   4500008004100000245006100041210005800102490000800160520139600168100002301564700002701587856004501614       2015                        eng d00aProgress on Nonpoint Pollution: Barriers & Opportunities0 aProgress on Nonpoint Pollution Barriers Opportunities0 v1443 aNonpoint source pollution is the runoff of pollutants (including soil and nutrients) from agricultural, urban, and other lands (as opposed to point-source pollution, which comes directly from one outlet). Many efforts have been made to combat both types of pollution, so why are we making so little progress in improving water quality by reducing runoff of soil and nutrients into lakes and rivers? This essay examines the challenges inherent in: 1) producing science to predict and assess nonpoint management and policy effectiveness; and 2) using science for management and policy-making. Barriers to demonstrating causality include few experimental designs, different spatial scales for behaviors and measured outcomes, and lags between when policies are enacted and when their effects are seen. Primary obstacles to using science as evidence in nonpoint policy include disagreements about values and preferences, disputes over validity of assumptions, and institutional barriers to reconciling the supply and demand for science. We will illustrate some of these challenges and present possible solutions using examples from the Yahara Watershed in Wisconsin. Overcoming the barriers to nonpoint-pollution prevention may require policy-makers to gain a better understanding of existing scientific knowledge and act to protect public values in the face of remaining scientific uncertainty.1 aRissman, Adena, R.1 aCarpenter, Stephen, R.  uhttp://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/daed01789nas a2200145   4500008004100000020001400041245012200055210006900177300001200246490000700258520128800265100002201553700002001575856004801595       2014                        eng d  a1015-162100aPhosphorus loading, transport and concentrations in a lake chain: a probabilistic model to compare management options0 aPhosphorus loading transport and concentrations in a lake chain   a145-1540 v763 aPhosphorus (P) loading, exports and concentrations of the four lakes of the Yahara chain (Wisconsin, USA) were compared under four load-reduction plans using a model calibrated with 29-33 years of annual data. P mitigation goals must balance reductions in P concentrations in the four lakes and the export from the lake chain to downstream waters. Lake Mendota, the uppermost lake, is most responsive to P load reductions, and benefits diminish downstream. Nonetheless, the greatest reductions in export from the lake chain to downstream waters derive from P load reductions to lakes lower in the chain. The effective grazer Daphnia pulicaria causes large improvements in water quality. Management to maintain populations of D. pulicaria has substantial benefits that augment those from reductions in P loading. Model projections show high variability in water quality and exports under all load-reduction plans. This variability is driven by inter-annual variation in runoff. Thus lake managers and the public should expect ongoing year-to-year variability in water quality, even though P load mitigation will improve water quality on average. Because of high variability from year to year, ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the effects of management of this chain of lakes.1 aCarpenter, S., R.1 aLathrop, R., C.  uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00027-013-0324-5