Science in the Park
Yesterday Denny and I met with Robin Alden and Ted Hoskins of the Penobscot
East Resource Center, an organization in Stonington focused on community
based science and community leadership. As often happens in such meetings,
someone asked me, "What does Acadia Partners do?" I gave the usual
quick answer: "We support science in the National Park."
Ted Hoskins is a careful listener–the kind of person who actually thinks
about what you say. So, rather than satisfying Ted, my answer had a kind of
multiplying effect, resulting in two more questions, each taking off in a
different direction. Pursuing those two questions here in the weblog might be
useful for others who want to know more about what we do at Acadia Partners.
Ted’s first remark was that "science in the park" covers a lot of
ground. He could think of a lot of different kinds of science that would be
important to Acadia National Park. Do we do all of that?
Well, yes and no. "Yes," in the sense that there is a broad range
of scientific inquiries that are potentially useful to the park and of interest
to the people and organizations that provide financial support to Acadia
Partners. These areas of inquiry include, of course, work in the natural
sciences–studies of forest ecology, species inventories, studies focused on the
effect of pollutants, and so on. We are also committed to the support of work
focused more on cultural resources, such as archeological studies and work that
will allow us to reconstruct patterns of land use over the last several hundred
years. It goes without saying, I suppose, that understanding past land use
patterns is an important part of gaining insight insight into current patterns
of species distribution. And … we are also interested in supporting research
in the social sciences, focusing on how people use and value the parks.
In short, the range of potentially interesting, important scientific research
is broad. On the other hand, our resources are limited. So, as we move forward
and build our program over the next few years, how will we decide on which
research programs to support? The decisions will bring together a number of
considerations:
- A central concern is whether the research is "important"–in the
sense that it provides fundamental information required to support other
research or answers questions with significant management implications.
Acadia Partners is in the process of establishing a board of scientific
advisors who will help us develop standards for assessing
"importance" and who can then assist in evaluating proposals and
in shaping our research program. - A second consideration is whether the research adds to and extends
what the National Park Service is already doing. It is imperative that the
funds provided by donors enable work that would otherwise not get done,
rather than simply pay for routine monitoring and assessment that would
otherwise be supported within the NPS budget. - A final consideration is that the work should reflect the interests and
concerns of the member/supporters who make Acadia Partners possible. For
example, if we have member/supporters who are particularly interested in
watershed protection, watershed research will emerge as a area of program
emphasis. This must, of course, be tempered by the other considerations–the
research must also be important and must add to our understanding of the
park–but we must also be responsive to the donors who enable our work.
Which brings us to Ted’s second question, which focused on the preposition
"in." Do we only support research in the park?
That is an important question, especially for Acadia National Park, which is
relatively small in size and which is physically integrated with surrounding
communities. It is simply not possible to understand Acadia National Park as an
ecosystem–or to understand effects on the park– without looking outside the
park boundaries. As a simple but very important example, Acadia National Park
sits at the mouth of the Union River and so is affected by activities throughout
the Union River Watershed. As another example, the park spans Frenchman Bay, and
is therefore affected by changes in the health and ecology of the bay.
In fact, Acadia Partners’ ability to support research outside the park
boundaries is an important part of our ability to satisfy the objectives
identified in the second bullet in the list of considerations, above: We add to
and extend the research that the park is able to do on its own by sponsoring
work that looks systems and conditions outside the park. In particular, we can
be sure that we will looking at the impacts of increased residential development
outside the park. Changes in water quality, air quality, wildlife populations,
and vegetation, all of which will change as residential development increases,
will certainly be high on the list of "important" research
considerations over the next decade.
So, the full answer Ted and Robin’s question about what Acadia Partners does
is something more like "support for a broad range of scientific research in
and around the park, particularly to the extent that it provides a foundation
for further research or that it illuminates important park management issues,
with a focus on extending the research already funded by the park, while
considering the particular interests and concerns of our member
supporters."
But, the next time I am asked, I’ll probably just, once again, answer that
"We support science in the National Park." It is easier for both me
and my listener to remember. And, if that catches my listener’s interest, then
I’ll take the opportunity to fill out the rest of the picture.
#####