Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation

Ecosystem services as an object of transdisciplinary cooperation

A. Zhuk
Download article
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

Keywords

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

Suggested citation
Zhuk, A. (2024). Ecosystem services as an object of transdisciplinary cooperation. Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation, 15(2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.31548/biologiya15(2).2024.002
References

[1] 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. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.13036.

[2] Arkhypova, L., & Prykhodko, M. (2020). Ecosystem services – Analysis of international experience of concept. Ecological Safety and Balanced use of Resources, 2(20), 24-32. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper2e84. 

[3] Chornomordenko, D.І. (2015). Modern ecology and transdisciplinary research methodology. Gileya: Scientific Herald, 97, 247-252. Retrieved from http://gileya.org/index.php?ng=library&cont=long&id=117.

[4] Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141(2), 350-352. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020.

[5] 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. doi: 10.3390/ecologies2040021.

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

[7] Guston, D.H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An Introduction. In Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4). doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401.

[8] Havadzyn, N., & Melnychuk, І. (2020). Improvement of tools for implementation of ecosystem service functions. Market Infrastructure, 41, 215-220. doi: 10.32843/infrastruct41-35.

[9] 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, article number 101286. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2021.101286.

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

[11] Kostytskyi, M.V. (2014). Logic as methodology of scientific cognition (particularly in jurisprudence). Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Law, 1, 3-13.
Retrieved from http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/Fmpp_2014_1_3.pdf. 

[12] Kumar, P. (Ed.). (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781849775489.

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

[14] 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. doi: 10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9.

[15] Nestoriak, Yu.Yu. (2015). Some theoretical approaches to the economic valuation of forest area based on ecosystem services. Scientific herald of Ukrainian National Forestry University, 25(4), 82-88.
Retrievwd from https://nv.nltu.edu.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/1248. 

[16] 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. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13659.

[17] Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F., 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.

[18] 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.
doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2017.07.016.

[19] 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. doi: 10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.005.

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

[21] 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. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/Nplanu_2014_12_31.pdf.