IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration


  • Steger, Cara
  • Hirsch, Shana
  • Evers, Cody
  • Branoff, Benjamin
  • Petrova, Maria
  • Nielsen-Pincus, Max
  • Wardropper, Chloe
  • van Riper, Carena J.


The ecosystem services (ES) framework has potential to bring transdisciplinary teams together to achieve societal goals. Some label ES as “boundary objects” that help integrate diverse forms of knowledge across social groups and organizational scales. However, this classification masks complexities that arise from unique characteristics of ES types (i.e., provisioning, regulating, and cultural), which influence their ability to function as boundary objects. We argue that interpretive flexibility and material structures interact in distinct ways across ES types throughout a boundary object “life cycle.” Viewing a 2015 U.S. federal memorandum as a catalyst, we critically evaluate the evolution of ES and its role as a boundary object. We propose that provisioning and regulating services are transitioning out of boundary object status, moving into a more standardized state. However, we anticipate that cultural services may continue to behave as boundary objects if collaborators maintain them as such. This shift in the functionality of ES as boundary objects is an important consideration for future research that attempts to reach across social worlds and disciplinary perspectives. We urge collaborations to rely on the most relevant disciplinary knowledge, rather than allowing the ease of standardized solutions to dictate the boundary of a given problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:153-160
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    2. Scarlett, Lynn & Boyd, James, 2015. "Ecosystem services and resource management: Institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 3-10.
    3. JunJie Wu, 2000. "Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 979-992.
    4. Fisher, Janet A. & Brown, Katrina, 2014. "Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 257-265.
    5. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    6. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    7. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    8. repec:hrv:hksfac:5345878 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:eee:ecoser:v:5:y:2013:i:c:p:163-169 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Winthrop, Robert H., 2014. "The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 208-214.
    11. Strunz, Sebastian, 2012. "Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 112-118.
    12. Susan Leigh Star & Karen Ruhleder, 1996. "Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 111-134, March.
    13. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    14. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    15. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    16. Menno Rol, 2008. "Idealization, abstraction, and the policy relevance of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 69-97.
    17. Esther Turnhout, 2009. "The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 403-412, June.
    18. repec:eee:ecoser:v:25:y:2017:i:c:p:35-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Abson, D.J. & von Wehrden, H. & Baumgärtner, S. & Fischer, J. & Hanspach, J. & Härdtle, W. & Heinrichs, H. & Klein, A.M. & Lang, D.J. & Martens, P. & Walmsley, D., 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-37.
    20. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    21. Clark, William C. & Tomich, Thomas P. & Noordwijk, Meine van & Guston, David & Delia, Catacutan & Dickson, Nancy M. & McNie, Elizabeth, 2011. "Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)," Scholarly Articles 9774653, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9415-z is not listed on IDEAS


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:153-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.