Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

Steger, Cara; Hirsch, Shana Lee; Evers, Cody; Branoff, Benjamin L.; Petrova, Maria A.; Nielsen-Pincus, Max; Wardropper, Chloe B.; Riper, Carena J. van

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016

Cited by 113 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The terminology and framing of ES present several limitations that may diminish its ability for communicating across disciplinary and societal worlds, although it has been recognized as a potential boundary object (e.g. Steger et al 2018;Ainscough et al 2019). However, limitations of ES can be attributed to the economic background of the ES concept (Kusmanoff et al 2017), the complex terms interpreted as scientific jargon (Reyers et al 2015), the inconsistency across terminology and definitions (La Notte et al 2017), and the overly limited and rigid standardization of ES types (Baveye et al 2018;Steger et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

Kadykalo

López‐Rodríguez

Ainscough

et al. 2019

Ecosystems and People

183

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multinational environmental agreements, and science-policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept-Nature's Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

Kadykalo

López‐Rodríguez

Ainscough

et al. 2019

Ecosystems and People

183

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relationships between standards and residuals in the dynamic concept of boundary objects(Star 2010;Steger et al 2018) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving beyond value creation in individual companies, firms have integrated customers, partners, and stakeholders in a mutual value co-creation process. Examples are platforms such as Apple's App Store, where external developers use boundary resources provided on the platform to develop and share applications in an ecosystem. While value co-creation on business-to-consumer platforms is common practice, research on their business-to-business (B2B) counterparts is still sparse. The goal of this paper is to analyze how B2B platforms utilize value co-creation practices. We conduct a multiple case study in the context of emerging Internet of things (IoT) platforms highlighting that B2B platforms follow three standardized value co-creation practices. The platform encourages the supply side through the (1) integration of complementary assets, the demand-side through (2) ensuring platform readiness and connects both processes by (3) servitization through application enablement. We conclude by showing how platforms leverage different boundary resources in a process of standardization to develop a scalable infrastructure that explains how platforms enable value co-creation within their ecosystem.

show abstract

“…Les premiers mettent en lien des demandes socio-économiques et des capacités de l'écosystème à fournir les services demandés et à assurer ses fonctions de support et de régulation (MAE, 2005). On perçoit le potentiel de ce concept comme objet frontière transdisciplinaire (Steger et al, 2018), malgré toute la prévention que l'on peut avoir à son égard (Kull et al, 2015). Des réajustements récents (Diaz et al, 2018) ont d'ailleurs reconnu la dimension socio-culturelle présente transversalement dans tous les différents services.…”

Section: Cadre Conceptuel Et Méthodologique Articulations Entre Conceunclassified