In an enhanced Policy Forum in Science 314 (5797): 257, Steve Carpenter and several other senior participants from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) that outlines the Research Needs identified by the MA. They highlight the need for:

• Theory Linking Ecological Diversity & Dyanmics
• Briding Scales; Monitoring
• Research that Assesses Policy Success;
• Improved understanding of Social-Ecological Change
• Improved methods of Ecological Valuation.

Their comments on Ecological theory, learning from policies, and Social-Ecological theory are of particular interest to resilience research. They write:

We lack a robust theoretical basis for linking ecological diversity to ecosystem dynamics and, in turn, to ecosystem services underlying human well-being. We all need this information to understand the limits and consequences of biodiversity loss and the actions needed to maintain or restore ecosystem functions.

The most catastrophic changes in ecosystem services identified in the MA involved nonlinear or abrupt shifts. We lack the ability to predict thresholds for such changes, whether or not a change may be reversible, and how individuals and societies will respond. Thus, the risks of ecosystem catastrophes are poorly quantified. Major ecosystem degradation tends to occur as syndromes of simultaneous failure in multiple services. For example, the populous dry lands of the world are facing a combination of failing crops and grazing, declining quality and quantity of fresh water, and loss of tree cover. Similarly, many rivers and lakes have experienced increases in nutrient pollution (eutrophication), toxicity, and biodiversity loss.

Relations between ecosystem services and human well-being are poorly understood. One gap relates to the consequences of changes in ecosystem services for poverty reduction. The poor are most dependent on ecosystem services and vulnerable to their degradation. Empirical studies are needed.

…

Policy Assessment
Existing policies constitute “experiments” from which we can learn (10). For example, there has been a proliferation of biodiversity conservation strategies designed to increase local incentives for conservation. Yet, McNeely et al. (11) conclude that “A key constraint in identifying what works and what does not work to create economic incentives for ecosystem conservation is the lack of empirical data supporting or refuting the success of any approach.” We already have evidence that sustained interdisciplinary effort can yield sound science and practical guidance (12).

We need to understand how the effects of response strategies vary among ecological and social contexts. We don’t know what conditions must be met or how to tailor planning and decision-making to local circumstances. Even in the few cases where research has explored options to maximize individual services (such as crop production), there is limited research into trade-offs with other ecosystem services (such as water resources or biodiversity). Understanding of the costs and benefits of alternative management approaches for the entire range of ecosystem services is essential. The few examples that assess the bundle of ecosystem services provided by a region show that a single-service analysis misses key trade-offs (13).

Linking Social to Ecosystem Change
Most research related to ecosystem services focuses on direct drivers, such as land use change or invasive species. Yet, effective management requires more attention to indirect drivers such as demographic, economic, sociopolitical, and cultural factors. In their assessment of forest responses, Sizer et al. (14) conclude that “[Forest sector] outcomes tend to be shaped as much or more by policies and institutions related to trade, macroeconomics, agriculture, infrastructure, energy, mining, and a range of other ’sectors’ than by processes and instruments within the forest sector itself.” In some cases, indirect drivers may provide better leverage points for policy than the direct drivers (15).

People have enormous capacity to adapt. Thus, investments in education and technology have substantial implications for future ecosystem services. However, we have limited capacity to project the effects on ecosystem services of investments in education or development of green technology.

See also a press release from the University of Wisconsin.