A question of fit: Reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 130, Issue , 2013, Pages 117-125

  Sternlieb, Faith ^a   Bixler, R Patrick ^a,b   Huber Stearns, Heidi ^a   Huayhuaca, Ch'aska ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b Pinchot Institute for Conservation   (United States)

Author keywords

Governance; Intermediary; Organizational learning; Scale; Transboundary organization

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

BOUNDARY ORGANIZATIONS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; DEMAND REPRESENTATION; GOVERNANCE; INTERMEDIARY; ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING; SCALE; SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; TRANS-BOUNDARY; TRANSBOUNDARY ORGANIZATION;

ECOLOGY;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; LAND CLASSIFICATION; LAND COVER; LAND USE; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; GOVERNMENT; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM; SOCIAL LEARNING;

GOVERNANCE; INTERMEDIARY; ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING; SCALE; TRANSBOUNDARY ORGANIZATION;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONS;

EID: 84884585528     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.053     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Agnew J.A., Mitchell K. ACompanion to Political Geography. Blackwell Companions to Geography 2003, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
2. Agrawala S., Broad K., Guston D.H. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Sci. Technol. Human Values 2001, 26:454-477.
3. Allen J. Power. ACompanion to Political Geography 2003, 95-108. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, G. Toal (Eds.).
4. Anderies J.M., Janssen M.A., Ostrom E. AFramework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9:1-18.
5. Armitage D.R., Plummer R., Berkes F., Arthur R.I., Charles A.T., Davidson-Hunt I.J., Diduck A.P., Doubleday N.C., Johnson D.S., Marschke M., McConney P., Pinkerton E.W., Wollenberg E.K. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7:95-102.
6. Ashkenas R., Ulrich D., Jick T., Kerr S. The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure 2002, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
7. Berkes F. Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. The Drama of the Commons 2002, 293-321. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. E. Ostrom (Ed.).
8. Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J.Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:1692-1702.
9. Berkes F., Colding J., Folke C. Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
10. Berkes F., Folke C. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems 2002, 121-146. Island Press, Washington, D.C. L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling (Eds.).
11. Berkes F., Folke C., Colding J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY, USA.
12. Berkes F., Folke C., Colding J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
13. Biermann F., Betsill M., Gupta J., Kanie N., Lebel L., Liverman D., Schroeder H., Siebenhüner B., Zondervan R. Earth system governance: a research framework. Int. Environ. Agree. Pol. Law Econ. 2010, 10:277-298.
14. Biggs R., Westley F.R., Carpenter S.R. Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15:1-9.
15. Bodin Ö., Crona B., Ernstson H. Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective?. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:1-8.
16. Bodin Ö., Crona B.I. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference?. Global Environ. Chan. 2009, 19:366-374.
17. Bodin Ö., Prell C. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, UK.
18. Boon W.P.C., Moors E.H.M., Kuhlmann S., Smits R.E.H.M. Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?. Res. Pol. 2011, 40:242-252.
19. Brand F.S., Jax K. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12:1-23.
20. Braun D. Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. J.Pub. Pol. 1993, 13:135-162.
21. Brenner N. The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Prog. Human Geo. 2001, 25:591-614.
22. Brown C.J., Purcell M. There's nothing inherent about scale: political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 2005, 36:607-624.
23. Brunckhorst D.J. Bioregional Planning: Resource Management beyond the New Millennium 2000, Harwood Academic, Amsterdam.
24. Brunckhorst D.J., Coop P. The influence of social eco-logics in shaping novel resource governance frameworks. Environment, Society and Natural Resource Management: Theoretical Perspectives from Australasia and the Americas 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. G. Lawrence, V. Higgins, S. Lockie (Eds.).
25. Carlsson L., Berkes F. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J.Environ. Manag. 2005, 75:65-76.
26. Carr A., Wilkinson R. Beyond participation: boundary organizations as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact. Soc. Nat. Res. 2005, 18:255-265.
27. Carroll T.F. Intermediary NGOs: the Supporting Link in Grassroots Development 1992, Kumarian Press Inc.
28. Cash D.W. "In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information:" Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci. Technol. Human Values 2001, 26:431-453.
29. Cash D.W., Adger W.N., Berkes F., Garden P., Lebel L., Olsson P., Pritchard L., Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:1-8.
30. Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., Dickson N.M., Eckley N., Guston D.H., Jäger J., Mitchell R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 2003, 100:8086-8091.
31. Cash D.W., Moser S.C. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ. Change 2000, 10:109-120.
32. Colding J., Folke C. Social Taboos: "Invisible" systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11:584-600.
33. Crona B.I., Parker J.N. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17:1-32.
34. Cumming G.S. Spatial Resilience in Social-ecological Systems 2011, Springer, Netherlands, (Online).
35. Cumming G.S., Cumming D.H.M., Redman C.L. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:1-14.
36. Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P.C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302:1907-1912.
37. Eden S., Donaldson A., Walker G. Green groups and grey areas: scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge. Environ. Plan. A 2006, 38:1061-1076.
38. Ekstrom J.A., Young O.R. Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14:1-16.
39. Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change 2006, 16:253-267.
40. Folke C., Pritchard L., Berkes F., Colding J., Svedin U. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12:1-30.
41. Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48:781-795.
42. Gieryn T.F. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line 1999, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
43. Guston D.H. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1999, 29:87-111.
44. Guston D.H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Human Values 2001, 26:399-408.
45. Hahn T., Olsson P. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around. Human Ecol. 2006, 34:573-592.
46. Hirschhorn L., Gilmore T. The new boundaries of the boundaryless company. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1992, 70:104-115.
47. Howitt R. Scale. ACompanion to Political Geography 2003, 138-157. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, G. Toal (Eds.).
48. Huitema D., Mostert E., Egas W., Moellenkamp S., Pahl-Wostl C., Yalcin R. Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14:1-26.
49. Jasanoff S. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1987, 17:195-230.
50. Jasanoff S. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1996, 26:393-418.
51. Jones S.B. Boundary concepts in the setting of place and time. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1959, 49:241-255.
52. Keen M., Brown V.A., Dyball R. Social Learning in Environmental Management: towards a Sustainable Future 2005, Earthscan, London, UK.
53. Kickert W.J.M., Klijn E.H., Koppenjan J.F.M. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector 1997, SAGE Publications, London, UK.
54. Kirchhoff C., Lemos M.C., Engle N.L. What influences climate information use in water management? the role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2013, 26:6-18.
55. Klerkx L., Leeuwis C. Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization. Sci. Public Pol. 2008, 35:183-196.
56. Kok K., Veldkamp T. Scale and governance: conceptual considerations and practical implications. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16:1-23.
57. Koppenjan J., Klijn E.H. Managing Uncertainties in Networks: a Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making 2004, Routledge, London, UK.
58. Kritsanaphan A., Sajor E.E. Intermediaries and informal interactions in decentralised environmental management in peri-urban Bangkok. Int. Develop. Plan. Rev. 2011, 33:247-272.
59. Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society 1987, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
60. Lebel L., Garden P., Imamura M. The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10:1-18.
61. Lebel L., Grothmann T., Siebenhüner B. The role of social learning in adaptiveness: insights from water management. Int. Environ. Agree. Pol. Law Econ. 2010, 10:333-353.
62. Lejano R.P., Ingram H. Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2009, 12:653-662.
63. Lemos M.C., Agrawal A. Environmental governance. Ann. Rev. Environ. Res. 2006, 31:297-325.
64. Levinthal D.A., March J.G. The myopia of learning. Strat. Manag. J. 1993, 14:95-112.
65. Lowell K. Fiat boundaries: some implications for interpretation, decision-support, and multi-temporal analysis. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 2008, 15:369-383.
66. Manson S.M. Does scale exist? an epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum 2008, 39:776-788.
67. Marston S.A. The social construction of scale. Prog. Human Geogr. 2000, 24:219-242.
68. Marston S.A., Jones J.P., Woodward K. Human geography without scale. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2005, 30:416-432.
69. Medd W., Marvin S. Strategic intermediation: between regional strategy and local practice. Sust. Develop. 2007, 15:318-327.
70. Miller C. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Human Values 2001, 26:478-500.
71. Milward H.B., Provan K.G. Measuring network structure. Public. Adm. 1998, 76:387-407.
72. Mollinga P.P. Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop Sci. 2010, 50:S1-S9.
73. Morehouse B.J. APlace Called Grand Canyon: Contested Geographies 1996, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
74. Moss T. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41:1480-1495.
75. Moss T., Medd W., Guy S., Marvin S. Organising water: the hidden role of intermediary work. Water Alt. 2009, 2:16-33.
76. Newig J., Günther D., Pahl-wostl C. Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15:1-24.
77. Newman D. Boundaries. ACompanion to Political Geography 2003, 123-137. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, G. Toal (Eds.).
78. O'Mahony S., Bechky B.A. Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Adm. Sci. Q. 2008, 53:422-459.
79. Olsson P., Folke C., Berkes F. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Manage. 2004, 34:75-90.
80. Olsson P., Folke C., Galaz V., Hahn T., Schultz L. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12:1-28.
81. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action 1990, Cambridge University Press, New York.
82. Ostrom E. Ageneral framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
83. Pahl-Wostl C., Craps M., Dewulf A., Mostert E., Tabara D., Taillieu T. Social learning and water resources management. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12:1-5.
84. Pavlakovich-Kochi V., Morehouse B.B.J., Wastl-Walter D. Challenged Borderlands: Transcending Political and Cultural Boundaries 2004, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
85. Pfeffer J., Salancik G.R. The External Control of Organizations: a Resource Dependence Perspective 1978, Harper & Row, New York.
86. Pham T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S., Aslin H., Hoang M.H. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37:64-72.
87. Powell W.W. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Res. Org. Behav. 1990, 12:295-336.
88. Prell C. Some basic structural characteristics of networks. Social Network and Natural Resource Management 2011, 29-43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. T. Bodin, C. Prell (Eds.).
89. Redman C.L., Grove J.M., Kuby L.H. Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 2004, 7:161-171.
90. Reed M.G., Bruyneel S. Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review. Prog. Human Geog. 2010, 34:646-653.
91. Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Pol. Sci. 1973, 4:155-169.
92. Rössel J., Collins R. Conflict Theory and Interaction Rituals: The Microfoundations of Conflict Theory 2001, 509-531. Springer, US, Riverside, CA. J.H. Turner (Ed.).
93. Saunier P.Y. Going transnational? News from down under: transnational History Symposium, Canberra, Australian National university, September 2004. Historical Soc. Res. 2004, 31:118-131.
94. Sayre N.F. Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration. Prog. Human Geog. 2005, 29:276-290.
95. Schultz L. Nurturing Resilience in Social-ecological Systems: Lessons Learned from Bridging Organizations 2009, 50. Department of Systems Ecology. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
96. Schusler T.M., Decker D.J., Pfeffer M.J. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Res. 2003, 15:309-326.
97. Scott A. The Dissemination of the Results of Environmental Research: a Scoping Report for the European Environment Agency 2000, Environmental Issues Series No. 15, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
98. Sheppard E., McMaster R.B. Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method 2004, Wiley, Oxford.
99. Silver J.J. Weighing in on scale: synthesizing disciplinary approaches to scale in the context of building interdisciplinary resource management. Soc. Nat. Res. 2008, 21:921-929.
100. Smith B. On drawing lines on a map. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1995, 988:475-484.
101. Smith B., Varzi A. Fiat and bona fide boundaries: towards an ontology of spatially extended objects. Spatial Information Theory a Theoretical Basis for GIS 1997, 103-119. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. S. Hirtle, A. Frank (Eds.).
102. Spalding M.J. Improving institutional response to environmental problems. Both Sides of the Border: Transboundary Environmental Management, Issues Facing Mexico and the United States 2002, 15-28. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. L. Fernandez, R.T. Carson (Eds.).
103. Staeheli L.A. Place. ACompanion to Political Geography 2003, 158-170. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, G. Toal (Eds.).
104. Star S.L., Griesemer J.R. Institutional ecology, 'Translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1989, 19:387-420.
105. Stringer L.C., Dougill A.J., Fraser E., Hubacek K., Prell C., Reed M.S. Unpacking "Participation " in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:1-39.
106. Swyngedouw E. Neither global nor local: 'Glocalization' and the politics of scale. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local 1997, 137-166. Guilford/Longman, New York/London. K. Cox (Ed.).
107. Taylor J.E. Boundary terminology. Environ. History 2008, 13:454-481.
108. Turnhout E. The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators. Sci. Public Pol. 2009, 36:403-412.
109. van der Meulen B., Nedeva M., Braun D. Intermediaries organisation and processes: theory and research issues. PRIME Workshop 6-7 October, Enschede, Netherlands 2005.
110. Van Noordwijk M., Leimona B., Emerton L., Tomich T.P., Velarde S.J., Kallesoe M., Sekher M., Swallow B. Criteria and indicators for environmental service compensation and reward mechanisms: Realistic, voluntary, conditional and pro-poor 2007, CES Scoping Study Issue Paper no. 2, ICRAF Working Paper no. 37, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
111. White D.D., Corley E.A., White M.S. Water managers' perceptions of the science-policy interface in phoenix, arizona: implications for an emerging boundary organization. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008, 21:230-243.
112. White D.D., Wutich A., Larson K.L., Gober P., Lant T., Senneville C. Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci. Public. Pol. 2010, 37:219-232.
113. Wilson J., Low B., Costanza R., Ostrom E. Scale misperceptions and the spatial dynamics of a social-ecological system. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 31:243-257.
114. Wondolleck J.M., Yaffee S.L. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management 2000, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
115. Young O. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:1-27.
116. Young O.R. Institutional interplay: the environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. The Drama of the Commons 2002, 263-291. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, E.U. Weber (Eds.).