Ecosystem services as the object of interdisciplinary collaboration

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31548/biologiya15(2).2024.002

Keywords:

ecosystem services, boundary objects, transdisciplinary research, scientific methodology, knowledge integration

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services embodies an ideological framework, serves as a subject for fundamental research, provides methodological groundwork for applied projects, offers a practical approach to natural resource management, acts as a platform for international governmental and non-governmental collaboration, and serves as a means of knowledge production. The article presents the results of a systematic literature analysis focused on identifying key research trends in the field of ecosystem services that need further attention and development. It also highlights promising directions for transdisciplinary collaboration in the implementation and management of ecosystem services. Research methods involved iterative information retrieval, analysis of scientific papers, and review of contemporary methodological approaches. Based on the processed sources, seven comprehensive research directions of ecosystem services and twenty branches were identified. Ecosystem services are characterized as boundary objects. The main findings point to the need for integration of scientific disciplines, involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, and consolidation of development perspectives across various fields to achieve a compromise between ecosystem services utilization and conservation. The role of boundary organizations in achieving these goals is emphasized. An insufficient integration between social and ecological disciplines in Ukrainian science is identified along with probable reasons for this situation. The conclusions underscore the importance of a transdisciplinary approach to ecosystem services research. Future research prospects include expanding collaboration between researchers and practitioners, as well as refining methodological approaches for comprehensive ecosystem services study.

References

Gangahagedara, R., Subasinghe, S., Lankathilake, M., Athukorala, W., & Gamage, I. (2021). Ecosystem services research trends: A bibliometric analysis from 2000–2020. Ecologies, 2(4), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies2040021

Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. v., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 630–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x

Lautenbach, S., Mupepele, A. C., Dormann, C. F., Lee, H., Schmidt, S., Scholte, S. S. K., Seppelt, R., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Verhagen, W., & Volk, M. (2019). Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Regional Environmental Change, 19(8), 2151–2172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9

Wang, B., Zhang, Q., & Cui, F. (2021). Scientific research on ecosystem services and human well-being: A bibliometric analysis. Ecological Indicators, 125, 107449. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2021.107449

Kumar, P. (Ed.). (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489

Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2016). Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.02.013

García-Nieto, A. P., Huland, E., Quintas-Soriano, C., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., & Martín-López, B. (2019). Evaluating social learning in participatory mapping of ecosystem services. Ecosystems and People, 15(1), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1667875

Allan, J. I., Auld, G., Cadman, T., & Stevenson, H. (2022). Comparative fortunes of ecosystem services as an international governance concept. Global Policy, 13(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13036

Steger, C., Hirsch, S., Evers, C., Branoff, B., Petrova, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Wardropper, C., & van Riper, C. J. (2018). Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecological Economics, 143, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2017.07.016

Schutter, M. S., & Hicks, C. C. (2021). Speaking across boundaries to explore the potential for interdisciplinarity in ecosystem services knowledge production. Conservation Biology, 35(4), 1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13659

Kostytskyi, M. V. (2014). Logic as Methodology of Scientific Cognition (particularly in Jurisprudence). Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Law, (1), 3–13. (In Ukrainian)

Zahvoyska, L. (2014). Theoretical approaches todetermining economic value of forest ecosystems services:benefits of pure standstransformation into mixed stands. Scientific proceedings of the forestry academy of sciences of Ukraine, (12), 201–209. (In Ukrainian)

Nestoriak, Yu.Yu. (2015). Some theoretical approaches to the economic valuation of forest area based on ecosystem services. Scientific bulletin of UNFU, 25(4), 82–88. (In Ukrainian)

Arkhypova, L., & Prykhodko, M. (2020). Ecosystem services – Analysis of international experience of concept. Ecological safety and balanced use of resources, 2(20), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.31471/2415-3184-2019-2(20)-24-32 (In Ukrainian)

Havadzyn, N., & Melnychuk, І. (2020). Improvement of tools for implementation of ecosystem service functions. Market infrastructure, 41, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.32843/infrastruct41-35 (In Ukrainian)

Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. In Science, Technology, & Human Values (Vol. 26, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401

Honeck, E., Gallagher, L., von Arx, B., Lehmann, A., Wyler, N., Villarrubia, O., Guinaudeau, B., & Schlaepfer, M. A. (2021). Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2021.101286

Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., Berkes, F., Louis, R. P., & Kliskey, A. (2016). Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. In Sustainability Science (Vol. 11, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x

Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.005

Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141(2), 350–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020

Chornomordenko, D. І. (2015). Modern ecology and transdisciplinary research methodology. Gileya: scientific herald, (97), 247–252. (In Ukrainian)

Downloads

Published

2024-04-01

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Статті

License

Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons  Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).