Search for: All records

This Forum brings together river restoration researchers and practitioners to stimulate debate about the recent explosion of interest in North American beaver (Castor canadensis) and beaver-related practices in North American river restoration science and management. While the beaver is described in recent literature as a low-cost, high-impact ecosystem engineer capable of minimizing the impacts of wildfire, drought, flood, and disturbance across the continent, we consider the importance of shifting from a focus on prescriptive results—on what beaver get humans—and towards engaging with beaver in relational process. Through a set of provocations that highlight the potential damage beaver fixes pose for stream restoration, for beaver, and for the lands and waters they inhabit with humans and other beings, we invite settler river scientists, river restorationists, and river thinkers to question the increasingly taken-for-granted logic of beaver as isolated creature, ecosystem engineer, and river savior; defer to the millennia of theory about beaver and their relations on this continent, partnering with beaver and with the Native peoples who have known them longest; and reconnect beaver back to people, place, and time in support of lively, dynamic, diverse, flourishing river systems across the continent. 

Abstract Earth System Models (ESM)are crucial for quantifying climate impacts across Earth's interconnected systems and supporting science‐based adaptation and mitigation. However, not including end‐users, especially decision‐makers representing communities vulnerable to climate change, can limit model utility, increase epistemic risks, and lead to information misuse in decision‐making. While the ESM community increasingly values broad community engagement, end‐users may not initially perceive models as useful for local planning. Co‐designing models with end‐users fosters two‐way learning: users better understand models and their outputs, while modelers gain insights into fine‐scale local processes like monitoring practices and management priorities. Higher‐level co‐design can lead to more customized, priority‐driven, and useful modeling products. Despite these benefits, modelers often struggle to initiate meaningful partnerships with local communities. Therefore, this paper explores model co‐design from the perspective of modelers. This study presents two case studies where modelers and social scientists collaborated with Indigenous communities' decision‐makers to reflect their priorities in model design and application. In the Arctic Rivers Project, high‐resolution climate and hydrology data sets for Alaska were developed with guidance from an Indigenous Advisory Council, using optimized, coupled land‐atmosphere models. In the Mid‐Klamath Project, we partnered with the Karuk Tribe's Department of Natural Resources to assess climate change and prescribed burning impacts on terrestrial hydrology in the Klamath River Basin. Drawing from these studies, we introduce a four‐level framework: (a) Co‐design Configuration; (b) Model Tuning; (c) Incorporate Contextual Knowledge; (d) Co‐develop New Model Functions. We aim to help researchers consider and compare co‐design across diverse modeling projects systematically and coherently.