<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Jelena Vukomanovic</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Caleb R. Hickman</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Adam J. Terando</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Mitchell J. Eaton</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Marie Schaefer</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Christina D. Perella</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2026</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3390/ijgi15050196</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>MPDI</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>An overview and participatory framework for choosing spatial boundaries in social–ecological systems modeling</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>