Evidence for an evolution of science from impacts to solutions in
coral reef resource use is not evident from this evaluation. Rather, there
is a proliferation of science and citation in all areas of restrictive
management but the spatial closure field has rapidly developed and far
out paces the knowledge generated on other management restrictions,
many of which are only being investigated by a small group of
researchers or composed of transient investigators that do not persist
beyond a single publication. To increase societal relevance, this science
needs to move on from issues that have been well established and
diversify into areas that interest a broader constituency of coral reef
stakeholders. Thiswill require greater engagementwith resource users,
managers, social scientists, more transdisciplinarity, greater efforts to
identify the contexts and social organization issues that lead to success
and failure, and to accept evidence for failure. Further, increasing the
scientific focus from simple hypothesis testing (i.e. closure vs
nonclosure), to gradients, rates of change, biological diversity and its
trade offs, units of social relevance (i.e. food and money), multivariate
analysis, inferential and deterministic modeling, portfolio analysis and
models, risk spreading, and environmental, ecological, and social
contexts is likely to provide considerable intellectual stimulus,
challenge, and social relevance for our science. There is much to be
done, a future for coral reefs requires our engagement, and ~100 million
coral reef dependents can potentially benefit from these efforts.