Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70275653

An overview and participatory framework for choosing spatial boundaries in social–ecological systems modeling

Abstract

A common challenge when modeling social–ecological systems (SESs) is defining the spatial extent of the system. Boundaries that do not adequately capture both social and ecological processes and their interactions can lead to mischaracterization of the system, while expanding boundaries too widely can impact model complexity and required resources. Socially, boundaries can invoke and influence identity, culture, power, and sense of place. Boundary decisions benefit from flexible, iterative approaches and the expertise of local communities. Here, we use a structured database search supplemented with citation searching to identify and review the literature that addresses choosing or defining spatial boundaries in SESs mapping or modeling and, when applicable, how participatory methods were used in the research process. In a review of the resulting 79 studies, we discovered that pre-existing social or ecological boundaries were used most frequently (36 and 18 publications, respectively). Twenty-one publications combined social and ecological boundaries or data to create custom boundaries, and four studies used an alternative approach to conventional boundaries. Informed by the literature review, we present a general framework for defining boundaries at the outset of SES research. We then connect the framework to a specific case study based on a collaborative project with Tribal, university, and federal scientists to develop a social–ecological climate adaptation plan. We present guiding questions alongside candidate boundaries for our study system and explore the tradeoffs of these boundary options, which can function as a useful template for other social–ecological research collaborations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Christina D. Perella, Jelena Vukomanovic, Caleb R. Hickman, Adam J. Terando, Mitchell J. Eaton, Marie Schaefer. 2026-05-01. An overview and participatory framework for choosing spatial boundaries in social–ecological systems modeling. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi15050196

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Towards a planetary spatial data infrastructure

Planetary science is the study of planets, moons, irregular bodies such as asteroids and the processes that create and modify them. Like terrestrial sciences, planetary science research is heavily dependent on collecting, processing and archiving large quantities of spatial data to support a range of activities. To address the complexity of storing, discovering, accessing, and utilizing spatial data, the terrestrial research community has developed conceptual Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) models and cyberinfrastructures. The needs that these systems seek to address for terrestrial spatial data users are similar to the needs of the planetary science community: spatial data should just work for the non-spatial expert. Here we discuss a path towards a Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructure (PSDI) solution that fulfills this primary need. We first explore the linkage between SDI models and cyberinfrastructures, then describe the gaps in current PSDI concepts, and discuss the overlap between terrestrial SDIs and a new, conceptual PSDI that best serves the needs of the planetary science community.

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information

Economic assessment of the use value of geospatial information

Geospatial data inform decision makers. An economic model that involves application of spatial and temporal scientific, technical, and economic data in decision making is described. The value of information (VOI) contained in geospatial data is the difference between the net benefits (in present value terms) of a decision with and without the information. A range of technologies is used to collect and distribute geospatial data. These technical activities are linked to examples that show how the data can be applied in decision making, which is a cultural activity. The economic model for assessing the VOI in geospatial data for decision making is applied to three examples: (1) a retrospective model about environmental regulation of agrochemicals; (2) a prospective model about the impact and mitigation of earthquakes in urban areas; and (3) a prospective model about developing private–public geospatial information for an ecosystem services market. Each example demonstrates the potential value of geospatial information in a decision with uncertain information.

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information