IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i5p403-412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Turnhout

Abstract

Nature conservation policy relies on ecological indicators to assess ecosystem quality and to evaluate the effectiveness of policy and management. Ecological indicators are science-based instruments that classify nature into different (ecosystem) types, each of which is characterised by specific parameters and references. This paper draws on classification and boundary object theory to analyse two case studies about the role of ecological indicators in nature conservation. The cases show that interpretative flexibility is an important factor explaining the effectiveness of ecological indicators as boundary objects. However, rather than a characteristic of the indicator itself, this is a social achievement, which depends on a common culture of shared values and preferences. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for the concept of boundary objects. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:5:p:403-412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X442007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Melo, Sara & Bishop, Simon, 2020. "Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    5. Michael Rose & Katharina Schleicher & Katrin Maibaum, 2017. "Transforming Well-Being in Wuppertal—Conditions and Constraints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Alamad, Samir & Hidayah, Nunung Nurul & Lowe, Alan, 2021. "A shared boundary object: Financial innovation and engineering in Islamic financial institutions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    7. Roberta Arbolino & Luisa De Simone, 2019. "Rethinking public and private policies in Europe with the support of a industrial sustainability index," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 315-339, June.
    8. Pekka Halla & Albert Merino‐Saum, 2022. "Conceptual frameworks in indicator‐based assessments of urban sustainability—An analysis based on 67 initiatives," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1056-1071, October.
    9. Jérôme Queste & Tom Wassenaar, 2019. "A practical dialogue protocol for sustainability science to contribute to regional resources management: its implementation in Réunion," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 3-16, February.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:5:p:403-412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.