An Overview and Participatory Framework for Choosing Spatial Boundaries in Social–Ecological Systems Modeling

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi15050196
Primary Topic
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Overview and Participatory Framework for Choosing Spatial Boundaries in Social–Ecological Systems Modeling

Caleb R. Hickman, Christina D. Perella, Adam Terando, Marie Schaefer et al.
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
article

An Overview and Participatory Framework for Choosing Spatial Boundaries in Social–Ecological Systems Modeling

Caleb R. Hickman, Christina D. Perella, Adam Terando, Marie Schaefer, Jelena Vukomanovic, Mitchell J. Eaton
article en

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.

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationVol. 15(5)
United States Geological Survey (US), North Carolina State University (US), Museum of the Cherokee Indian (US), Institute of Grassland Research (CN), Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.