 ACSC, as a five-year initiative, has a limited life. And so at the center, we are looking toward presently, toward the sort of what next. And there are really two things that we think we can take from ACSC and Bill Lund. And one is this integrative approach that I refer to that takes seriously between different academic disciplines, but also between academic disciplines and the role of practice, policy, and so forth. But also the emerging ACSC framework. And this is what I'd like to talk about now briefly. And in the next bunch of slides on this framework, I want to acknowledge Paul Hirsch from Georgia Tech, who has put this presentation together with the working character closely with him. The framework is a framework, essentially, for analyzing case studies. And I want to be forthright here. The ACSC process, the planning, we have a two-year planning process, and then now we're going to position the burden in year three, was difficult. It was difficult because we were trying to cross those disciplinary divides. We were dealing with academics, talking to practitioners, and not communicating. We were dealing with using terms that we thought we had a common agreement on in terms of what they meant, only to discover that we meant very different things. Sometimes if you work in an interdisciplinary science, you know that some people tend to think that, again, these arguments were in my theories bigger than your theory. And so there were some moments that at the time felt unproductive, but I think ultimately really made us face these kinds of tensions, if you will, as something that characterizes interdisciplinary and integrative research. And we took that to heart, that challenge, and that difficulty. And this, to me, is one of the things that someone who's tried to work across disciplines will get a part of my career. This is something that, to me, is very appealing about the trade-offs focus. I also, if I can position this sort of personally, as this initiative developed, I was the sort of person in the planning group who was most opposed to the idea of focusing on the idea of trade-offs because it felt too economistic to me and too limited to sort of one perspective on the world. And whereas I was trying to be in the sort of planning process, I was trying to be a voice for pluralism, that we need different kinds of perspectives. I have subsequently come to embrace the trade-offs focus because I think trade-offs is a really great concept for talking across disciplines. They're talking across domains. It's kind of a common meeting area. As long as we can acknowledge that there are very different ways of even thinking about what a trade-off is and how you analyze it and how you document it and so forth. But anything. What we have developed is a framework that we think will be useful in analyzing particular case studies. And we've been continuing. This is a work in progress. I want to say that right away. We have now a series of three workshops in Peru, Tanzania, and Vietnam in which our country partners put together case studies. So for instance, our Vietnam colleagues put together a case study of Ha Long Bay in northern Vietnam, which is a spectacularly beautiful place, but also just inland has massive coal mining. And the idea then is to bring together data in a particular way and I'll talk about this that allows you to kind of take this context, this issue, this problem, and analyze it. I'll come back to this particular framework.