Sea-level rise threatens both human communities and vulnerable species within coastal areas. Joint spatial planning can allow conservation and social resiliency goals to work in synergy. We present a case study integrating distribution information of a threatened saltmarsh bird, the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis jamaicensis), with social information to facilitate such joint planning. We constructed a distribution model for the species within an urbanizing coastal region (New Jersey, USA) and integrated this with publicly available parcel and protected area data to summarize ownership patterns. We estimated that c. 0.3–2.8% (c. 260–2200 ha) of available saltmarsh is occupied by eastern black rail, most of which is publicly owned (79%). Privately owned saltmarsh was spread across nearly 5000 individual parcels, 10% of which contained areas with the highest likelihood of rail presence according to our model (top quartile of predicted occupancy probabilities). Compared with all privately owned saltmarsh, parcels with probable rail habitat were larger (median: 5 versus 2 ha), contained more marsh (87% versus 59%) and were less economically valuable (US$11 200 versus US$36 100). Our approach of integrating species distributions with landownership data helps clarify trade-offs and synergies in species conservation and coastal resiliency planning.

The discipline of ecology has evolved through several phases as it has developed and defined itself and its relationship with human society. While it initially had little to do with human concerns, it has become more applied, and is today more integrated with the human element in the way it conceptualizes complex social-ecological systems. As the science has developed, so too have its relationships with other disciplines, as well as people and processes outside the domain of science. However, it is unclear how far ecology has progressed in developing these relationships and where it should best focus its efforts in the future in order to increase its relevance and role in society. The concept of ecosystem services (the benefits people get from nature) has the potential to further this integration and clarify ecology's role and relevance in society, however doubt remains as to whether the concept has helped ecology in developing disciplinary and societal relationships. This review assesses the progress of ecology in relation to a transdisciplinary knowledge hierarchy (empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive) where all levels of the hierarchy are coordinated on the basis of an overall purpose introduced from the purposive level down. At each of the levels of the knowledge hierarchy, the principles of transdisciplinarity, ecology's progress, the contribution of ecosystem services to this progress and future directions for a transdisciplinary ecology are explored. Ecology has made good progress in developing an interdisciplinary dialogue between the natural and social sciences and sectors. It is well-integrated with empirical and pragmatic disciplines and coordinates research at these two levels. At the normative level, the absence of collaborative frameworks and planning instruments is a major gap limiting the influence that ecology can have on land and resource use decisions at this level. At the purposive level, ecology has limited interactions with a narrow set of values associated with ecological ethics and economics. There is an obvious need for ecology to engage with the purposive disciplines of philosophy, ethics and theology, but also a need for ecological research to transform itself into a social process dealing with values and norms of both society and science. Ecosystem services have helped ecology to make links with many disciplines at the empirical and pragmatic levels, provided a useful concept and framework for interactions at the normative level requiring further examination, and helped make values explicit, allowing ecologists to begin to interact with the purposive level. The Western ecological economic origins of the ecosystem service concept presents a potential constraint to interactions at the purposive level, and must be considered and addressed if ecosystem services are to further the development of a transdisciplinary ecology, the joint ecology-society debate and the formulation and execution of policy.

Interdisciplinary research requires scholars to learn by doing, and thus interdisciplinary work will be constantly undergoing development. This paper reviews how a large truly integrated interdisciplinary research team capable of handling complex interdependent social and environmental issues was created, developed and managed. The Canadian Coasts Under Stress bicoastal research project (CUS) constitutes a case study, aimed at providing a detailed analysis of a successful relatively ‘mature’ template for interdisciplinary team research that can be transferred to other teams and other research problems. CUS was created to address coastal social-ecological stress, and it uncovered linkages (‘pathways’) between the main drivers of social-ecological health in both human and environmental communities. In so doing, the team produced a comprehensive new way to understand restructuring and its impact on social-ecological health. In organizational terms, the team was divided into two coastal sub-teams (east and west) and five main research components that were reflected in the team logo as the arms of a seastar. To achieve integration of all components and subcomponents, a methodology for research construction and integration was employed that operated in tandem with the methodologies employed in the various subcomponents. Team members shared their vision of what they wished to achieve and meetings were facilitated in a variety of ways such that cross-fertilization and discussion were ongoing, and team members always knew exactly where their work fitted into the greater whole. In the process, significant student training occurred, and the challenge of equitable publication processes were met such that the output of the team achieved both disciplinary rigour and interdisciplinary understanding.