Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources Management

The article deals with the question of what it means to deal with complexity in the management of natural resource systems and how research practices are influenced by it.

First, Mollinga defines three types of complexity: 1) ontological, 2) social, and 3) analytical. They point out firstly that although NRM problems can be described scientifically, they cannot be solved in this way. Secondly, they suggest that NRM systems are always embedded in social contexts and are used and managed by different groups with varying interests and perspectives. Thirdly, NRM systems are complicated and difficult to understand and are not fully grasped because individual disciplines only deal with subsystems. Ontological and analytical complexity in NRM systems requires interdisciplinary research and collaboration while societal complexity requires transdisciplinary research.

Different approaches to the integrative and interdisciplinary research of NRM systems have already emerged within various national, academic contexts, for example, the “research policy interface” of the interdisciplinary sustainability sciences in the USA, the transdisciplinary research of NRM systems in Switzerland or concepts of developmental and participatory modeling in rural research in Great Britain. With the “boundary work” concept, Mollinga proposes an additional approach for the integrative research of NRM systems.

“Boundary Crossing” is a necessary task in inter- and transdisciplinary studies, which does not just happen by itself, but rather requires active work, namely “boundary work.” This work can be divided into three types: 1) the development of “boundary concepts” that allow for thinking and conceptual communication about multidimensional problems such as NRM systems; 2) the definition of “boundary objects” that represent methods and means of working in situations where incomplete knowledge, non-linearity, and different interests are present; 3) the creation of “boundary settings” in which concepts and objects can be made effective.

“Boundary concepts” are terms that function as concepts for various disciplines and actors (e.g. policy makers) that describe the same object but can have varying meanings. Typical examples include “sustainability,” “ecosystem services,” or “resilience.”

“Boundary objects” can be created through analytical, assessment, and participatory processes. While the analytical approach is based on scientific standards and aims at a realistic modeling of NRM systems, for example, the assessment approach focuses on the creation of simpler models with practical use for policy makers. The participatory approach focuses on processes of social learning, in which power relations in resource planning and knowledge development should be balanced.

“Boundary settings” refer to the internal and external institutional and organizational conditions under which transdisciplinary research can be successfully implemented.

Using a ZEF-funded (ZEF = Center for Development Research) transdisciplinary project on economic and ecological restructuring that aims at the sustainability of irrigated cotton farming in Uzbekistan, Mollinga conclusively illustrates the challenges and problems of boundary work.