The complex and interdisciplinary nature of socio-environmental (SE) problems has led to numerous efforts to develop organizing frameworks to capture the structural and functional elements of SE systems. We evaluate six leading SE frameworks, i.e., human ecosystem framework, resilience, integrated assessment of ecosystem services, vulnerability framework, coupled human-natural systems, and social-ecological systems framework, with the dual goals of (1) investigating the theoretical core of SE systems research emerging across diverse frameworks and (2) highlighting the gaps and research frontiers brought to the fore by a comparative evaluation. The discussion of the emergent theoretical core is centered on four shared structuring elements of SE systems: components, connections, scale, and context. Cross-cutting research frontiers include: moving beyond singular case studies and small-n studies to meta-analytic comparative work on outcomes in related SE systems; combining descriptive and data-driven modeling approaches to SE systems analysis; and promoting the evolution and refinement of frameworks through empirical application and testing, and interframework learning.

As the extent and intensity of human impacts on ecosystems increase and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb these impacts dwindles, unanticipated behavior in ecological systems-or surprises-is likely to become more common. The concept of ecological surprise is broadly applied but seldom explicitly developed in ecological literature, and ecologists can employ diverging language, frameworks, and interpretations of surprise. Here, we synthesize what ecological surprise has meant to ecologists studying these events and review the development and use of the concept in ecology. We define ecological surprise as a situation where human expectations or predictions of natural system behavior deviate from observed ecosystem behavior. This can occur when people (1) fail to anticipate change in ecosystems; (2) fail to influence ecosystem behavior as intended; or (3) discover something about an ecosystem that runs counter to accepted knowledge. We develop a conceptual model that captures the interactions between social and ecological processes that lead to these events and examine two types of drivers that contribute to surprise: Underlying driving forces and proximate causes. Our definition of ecological surprise inherently acknowledges that, to be surprising, there must be human observers to the ecological occurrence who have expectations about ecosystem behavior. To explore this dimension, we draw on social science perspectives to understand the ways in which human expectations of ecosystems are influenced by social networks, heuristics, and mental models. We use a case study to demonstrate how our integrated conceptualization of ecological surprise provides a systematic way of examining these events. Our integration of these perspectives enables us to better synthesize social and ecological knowledge of these events, and encourages ecologists to critically reflect on how they, as scientists, formulate and reformulate expectations of ecosystem behavior.

A key challenge facing ecologists and ecosystem managers is understanding what drives unexpected shifts in ecosystems and limits the effectiveness of human interventions. Research that integrates and analyses data from natural and social systems can provide important insight for unravelling the complexity of these dynamics. It is, therefore, a critical step towards the development of evidence-based, whole-system management approaches. To examine our ability to influence ecosystems that are behaving in unexpected ways, we explore three prominent cases of “ecological surprise.” We captured the social-ecological systems (SES) using key variables and interactions from Ostrom’s SES framework, which integrates broader ecosystem processes (e.g. climate, connectivity), management variables (e.g. quotas, restrictions, monitoring), resource use behaviours (e.g. harvesting) and the resource unit (e.g. trees, fish, clean water) being managed. Structural equation modelling revealed that management interventions often influenced resource use behaviours (e.g. rules and limits strongly affected harvest or pollution), but they did not have a significant effect on the abundance of the managed resource. Instead, most resource variability was related to ecological processes and feedbacks operating at broader spatial or temporal scales than management interventions, which locked the resource system into the degraded state. Synthesis and applications. Mismatch between the influence of management systems and ecosystem processes can limit the effectiveness of human interventions during periods of ecological surprise. Management strategies should shift from a conventional focus on removal or addition of a single resource towards solutions that influence the broader ecosystem. Operationalizing Ostrom’s framework to quantitatively analyse social-ecological systems using structural equation models shows promise for testing solutions to navigate these events.

Complex socio-environmental challenges require interdisciplinary, team-based research capacity. Graduate students are fundamental to building such capacity, yet formal opportunities for graduate students to develop these capacities and skills are uncommon. This paper presents an assessment of the Graduate Pursuit (GP) program, a formal interdisciplinary team science graduate research and training program administered by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the program’s first cohort revealed that participants became significantly more comfortable with interdisciplinary research and team science approaches, increased their capacity to work across disciplines, and were enabled to produce tangible research outcomes. Qualitative analysis of four themes—(1) discipline, specialization, and shared purpose, (2) interpersonal skills and personality, (3) communication and teamwork, and (4) perceived costs and benefits—encompass participants’ positive and negative experiences and support findings from past assessments. The findings also identify challenges and benefits related to individual personality traits and team personality orientation, the importance of perceiving a sense of autonomy and independence, and the benefit of graduate training programs independent of the university and graduate program environment.