Social-ecological systems (SES) involve complex and dynamic interactions across a variety of actors and their surrounding environment 1. In SES, Resource Units can be a variety of objects that are of interest to human communities, including commodities like fish and lumber, or objects and species that provide spiritual or emotional value. These units exist within the larger Resource System, which includes the physical and biological aspects of the system, including one or more resource units. Interactions involving these resources are managed by the institutions, norms, and rules that comprise Governance Systems, which manage the behaviors and interactions of the Users within the SES. SES are characterized by constant overlap and dynamic interactions among these subsystems¹.

In SES, interactions among subsystems occur in the boundaries between them and, for those interactions to be effective and sustainable, boundary spanning processes must bridge the gaps. Local contexts determine the ways in which boundary spanning occurs. Across all systems, however, boundary spanning is critical in managing and facilitating interactions and processing information². Actors and organizations that facilitate these interactions and support communication of ideas throughout the system can be thought of as boundary organizations such as non-governmental organizations, government extension agencies, or advocacy groups^3,4,5. Individual actors can facilitate the work of boundary organizations by doing the action of boundary spanning. These boundary spanners can enable more effective decision-making throughout a variety of institutions^2,6. Boundary spanning can take forms such as community engagement⁷, academic extension, and outreach^8,9. Boundary spanners can contribute to science, policy, and the spaces in between^10,11, and their role is particularly important in translating and streamlining the complexities of SES^12,13. Boundary spanners can be effective in brokering and advocating for science¹⁴, supporting the increasingly important role of scientists as brokers of knowledge in society at large¹⁵. In this paper, Ostrom’s SES framework¹ serves as a map on which boundaries can be broadly identified and boundary spanning processes can be placed. While the SES framework is imperfect and processes exist outside of and across subsystems, the framework’s simplicity offers a generalizable canvas through which our findings can be visualized and communicated.

The work that boundary spanners do can often walk the line between issue-based activism and evidence-based interpretation^16,17. The motivations of individual boundary spanners, along with their underlying characteristics, can influence their effectiveness in communicating and interpreting science to the general public¹¹. It is therefore important to understand the full context of boundary spanners and boundary spanning processes. Understanding the motivations, characteristics, and interactions of boundary spanners can inform more effective environmental governance policies and contribute to the holistic study of SES and biodiversity conservation. This paper investigates these processes within a representative SES, providing insights that are broadly applicable to environmental conservation researchers and practitioners.

One important, but often overlooked, boundary spanning group is community scientists. Community scientists play an increasingly influential role in the science, conservation, and management of environments and ecosystems worldwide¹⁸. In general, community scientists are non-credentialed volunteers who contribute to scientific learning, from supporting large collaborative research programs to running local, community-based projects^18,19,20,21. Community scientists come from a variety of backgrounds and participate in diverse ways, performing roles ranging from field research assistants to online data processors^{22,23,24,25,26}. When discussing community science in this context, we are referring to the practice traditionally known as citizen science. However, we use the increasingly recognized term community science, due to concerns over the exclusionary and anachronistic nature of citizen science. See work by Ellwood and colleagues for a detailed discussion of this shift in terminology²⁷.

When engaging in community science where the participants are deeply connected to a place, the community scientists bring unique, situational expertise developed through their place-based experiences in a given SES. In this sense, community scientists are just that: scientists drawn from, reflective of, and familiar with the communities in which work is being done. As such, they bring to the scientific process insights and perspectives gained from their enculturation in a place, inclusive of the time they spend in and around those local environments^28,29. Through their expertise and influence in their SES, they provide leadership and social capital in support of pro-environmental outcomes, vital qualities driving success in SES³⁰. In this paper, we consider community scientists to be locally based volunteers working toward scientific pursuits in their community. Although this may reduce the scope of what some consider community science, it focuses our attention on the interactions of community scientists and how they exist in local SES.

Community scientists’ involvement and participation throughout SES can bring a range of purported benefits both for conservation policy and management as well as for the participants themselves^31,32,33. Beyond conventional data collection, community scientists can diversify knowledge by sharing their Local Ecological Knowledge and place-based expertise^20,34. By blending these different ways of knowing about the world, multiple voices are elevated, collective knowledge is diversified, and a more comprehensive understanding of SES can be achieved^35,36. Many scholars have argued that approaches centering these kinds of diverse perspectives, incorporating multiple ways of knowing, and leveraging the strengths of a variety of methodologies should be incorporated more frequently into environmental research^37,38,39,40. Indigenous Ecological Knowledge has a vital role in these processes as well²⁰. The intergenerational rights and responsibilities of stewardship of lands and waters held by Indigenous peoples makes their participation in science distinct from community science as we have described, and therefore we do not include Indigenous Ecological Knowledge in this research. Future research to further investigate the role of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge in these processes would be valuable.

Despite the increasing importance of both boundary spanning processes and community scientists in sustainability and conservation science, policy, and management, to our knowledge no work has specifically investigated community scientists as boundary spanners. Southern and colleagues examined the role of community-engaged research in facilitating science⁴¹, underscoring the importance of building trust across boundaries and focusing on the role of principal investigators. Oswald investigated boundaries within a particular community science organization and demonstrated the importance of internal boundary spanning between community scientists and organizers⁴². Neset and colleagues showed that a community science platform supported impact-oriented scientific information, arguing that similar community science applications could serve this boundary spanning role⁴³. Mayes and colleagues provided context about boundary work supporting the perceived legitimacy of community science; however, their work focuses on boundary spanning by credentialed experts as arbiters of community scientists’ credibility^44,45. Although this body of work provides useful context about boundary spanning processes that mediate systems involving community science, it generally focuses on individuals and institutions other than the community scientists themselves. Our research builds on existing work by examining the boundary spanning roles and functions of community scientists as well as the implications for conservation and management of SES.

Specifically, we investigated the question: “What boundary-spanning roles do community scientists play in SES?â€� The role of community scientists as data collectors in SES is well documented^18,19,32,34. However, these actors contribute to a variety of processes and their individual roles and interactions are flexible and dynamic⁴⁶. Community science can benefit conservation outcomes³³, policy and management³¹, and the participants themselves⁴⁷. Community science and participation in conservation can also change the ways individuals and communities interact in SES. Community participation in science can drive greater environmental stewardship⁴⁸, cultivating a sense of environmental citizenship that can drive people “to transform their own relationship with nature.â€�⁴⁹ This self-perception of the community as stewards can impact outcomes and interactions throughout the SES⁵⁰. Such participation in the science of a place connects individuals and communities to their places and, in turn, supports the conservation of SES²⁸.

In this paper, we explore the role of community scientists as boundary spanners filling three distinct roles in SES in response to institutional capacity gaps and limitations. We do so by examining a representative and generalizable case study through which we can understand how and where boundary spanning processes occur in SES. Using semi-structured interviews and qualitative thematic analysis, we document and analyze the experiences of these community scientists and government officials at various levels within the SES to understand under what conditions boundary spanning occurs. (See Methods.) The government officials investigated in this study are public-facing agency representatives with whom the community scientists most frequently interact, providing an extrinsically interesting case through which we seek to understand interactions spanning boundaries in SES with similar interactions. Our findings allow us to argue that community scientists play important and often overlooked roles spanning boundaries that may be common across a variety of SES.

Based on our findings, we describe the role of community scientists as boundary spanners for (1) knowledge generation, (2) education, and (3) enforcement, and we map each of these boundary-spanning roles onto a modified version of Ostrom’s SES framework¹ (Fig. 1). To more deeply understand these roles, we examine a case of a community science group in coastal California, USA, that has been collecting data on pinniped (semiaquatic marine mammals including seals and sea lions) abundance and behavior for over 20 years. (See Methods for more information on this group.) In this context, the capacity gaps experienced by institutions—in our case government agencies—arise from a variety of circumstances, including funding constraints, large spatial jurisdictions, and lack of specific contextual expertise and experience. These limitations are not unique to the government agencies investigated in this paper; such gaps and limitations can arise in a variety of contexts and from a variety of circumstances^51,52,53.

Modification of Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework¹, modified and reproduced with permission. Red lines indicate boundary spanning activities and processes. Light gray lines represent continuous feedback loops and interactions among the subsystems. Boundary spanning activities are represented as bi-directional interactions between subsystems, emphasizing the continuous, multi-directional interactions that occur throughout the SES. The knowledge generation arrows represent community scientists facilitating knowledge exchange among the government agencies, Resource Units (marine mammals), and full Resource System (the larger ecosystem). Education arrows represent the community scientists as providing education to the Users (general public) about ecology and policies in the system and to the government agencies about the perceptions and priorities of the general public and the ecosystem itself. Enforcement arrows emphasize the implicit and explicit role that community scientists take in enforcing regulations on the Users and Resource System, as well as providing enforcement support through “good reportingâ€� to the government agencies. Figure created by the lead author using Adobe Illustrator⁷⁰.

Full size image

Boundary spanners for knowledge generation

Community scientists’ role in supporting knowledge generation arose largely as the result of capacity gaps among institutions within the SES, specifically staffing shortages and lack of institutional capacity to gather data. Government agencies in this study were frequently required to collect data in support of regulatory compliance. Government Official 2 stated that “Unfortunately, [the federal agency] is over-tasked with what they’re supposed to be having oversight of.� Community scientists filled in the gap, supporting “over-tasked� government agencies by augmenting the data collection efforts that the agencies are mandated to undertake and providing “a larger collection of varied perspectives� (Government Official 3). Participant 6 summarized the community scientists’ self-perception, describing their role as “fill[ing] a void.� Government Official 2 further emphasized how vital it is to have community scientists augment the data: “Because of limited resources for surveys of [the federal agency’s] own, they do rely on this data. And so, all the way along the coastline are volunteers, mainly contributing shoreline sightings and observations.�

Perhaps the most intuitive role of community scientists is knowledge generation. As discussed in the introduction, past studies have found community scientists to be effective in gathering data, supporting scientific learning, and contributing local expertise and place-based knowledge in SES. In this case, boundary spanning for knowledge generation primarily supported government agencies in learning more about the Resource Units (in this case marine mammals) and the larger Resource System itself (Fig. 1, knowledge generation arrows). The experience of the community scientists in this case emphasizes the importance of this process (Table 1A).

Expanding the amount of available data is a benefit of community scientists’ partnership with government agencies. Government Official 1 remarked at how “you’re just getting such a larger number of people� out gathering data. Government Official 3 further discussed how their local agency “bases [their] actions on the [volunteer group] data and observations,� underscoring the value of community scientists’ knowledge generation contributions.

A particular advantage of community scientists’ data is that they are often place-based and therefore closely connected to the context of their own community, system, and situation^28,54. When community scientists generate knowledge, they contextualize it within local nuance, thus supporting relevant, bespoke governance. Government Official 1 emphasized this, stating “One thing that’s really nice about people who are place-based is their breadth of time of observation. And so, often, I will rely on people who have a really deep understanding of place-based issues to identify sensitive seasons.�

An important caveat government officials frequently discussed was the need for community scientists’ data to be understood in the context in which they were generated. Vetting or support of data by trained experts was viewed as particularly important. Although the “specialist tacit knowledgeâ€�²⁹ of community scientists is valuable, government officials analyzed the data with skepticism and “some level of judgment of different people and their capabilities as scientists, and maybe their backgrounds as scientistsâ€� (Government Official 3). Value was placed on consistent protocols and reporting, experience of the community scientists, and vetting by credentialed or highly trusted experts. Government Official 1 summarized this thought process, stating, “If there’s a community group that is taking data with a consistent protocol in a consistent way, and they can provide numbers that have been collected with a methodology that would not introduce bias, I’m happy to use [those data]. I think sometimes I need to be very discerning about the level of training that people have had. But I’m happy to incorporate datasets that I feel have been collected in a scientifically rigorous way.â€�

Boundary spanners for education

Community science has an intuitive connection to education and is integrated into a variety of learning environments⁵⁵. Participatory processes like community science have been shown to support environmental and social learning⁵⁴ and stewardship behavior^56,57. Through their participation, community scientists learn about their environment^58,59; such social and place-based learning is a key objective of community science^17,24. Less is known about how community scientists support education within and of the general community.

The most substantial limiting factor for community education in the studied SES was the lack of institutional capacity to provide education and interpretation resulting primarily from insufficient staffing. Government Official 2 captured their peers’ sentiments, sharing that “[In a perfect world] we would have probably more people, more staff, you know, and more capacity to really work more with the community.� Government officials viewed community scientists as the “boots on the ground� (Government Officials 1 and 3) that help fill in educational gaps left by insufficient personnel resources. Officials viewed community scientists as an extension of their agencies, implicitly and explicitly empowering them to provide education and interpretation of both the ecology and policies of the SES.

Community members also perceived this gap and expressed similar frustration that there should be an increased official educational presence in the SES (Table 1B). Community scientists repeatedly pointed out that the lack of education around policies in the SES—which is governed by local ordinances, state conservation and land-use law, and federal environmental law—has consequences around potentially disruptive and harmful behavior towards pinnipeds. The legality of drone use, for example, was frequently mentioned as a gap in education and a harmful disturbance event: “Have I seen a single ‘No drones allowed’ sign in the sanctuary? I don’t think I have� (Participant 6); “Most drone operators have no idea they’re disrupting the wildlife� (Participant 3).

This perceived lack of education extended to the biology of the SES. This was mentioned less frequently and with less concern than the practice of educating the community about what behaviors were not allowed. It was clear, however, that sharing their knowledge and passion about the pinnipeds was among the favorite roles of the community scientists.

In our study location, one of the primary activities performed by community scientists was educating the public. Community scientists viewed themselves as docents and many had formal docent training. Participants often described providing education as a highlight of their experience, while also noting that it required a substantial time commitment. Concurrently, they spoke enthusiastically about the community’s response to their interpretation (Table 1B). Community scientists demonstrated a sense of responsibility to share their knowledge and passion for the ecosystem and the mammals they monitored. As Participant 5 emphasized, “I would say it’s vital. It’s vital. I mean, not giving information is the worst thing we can do for the [pinnipeds] in my opinion.�

Community scientists viewed themselves as having unique, specialized knowledge about the SES. Through time spent collecting data and observing these pinnipeds, the community scientists appeared to have developed what Collins and Evans would describe as “specialist tacit knowledgeâ€�²⁹. Equipped with this expertise, the community scientists expressed a responsibility to share that knowledge. Ultimately, the community scientists’ mission in this role was to inspire stewardship through education and interpretation. Participant 6 summarized this mission, stating “I’m going to inspire, I’m going to interpret. I’m also going to educate.â€�

The importance of this goal was echoed by government representatives in the SES. Government Official 2 emphasized the importance of these groups and their close relationship with the agencies, sharing, “I would say [the mission] is inspiring stewardship…And so I see the volunteers … as a really important tool to share that and inspire and motivate people.� In this role, community scientists also provided education to the government officials, sharing insights about not only the system’s ecology, but also about the social interactions as well as the local community’s perceptions and priorities (Fig. 1, education arrows).

Boundary spanners for enforcement

In this case, community scientists perceived that institutions provide insufficient enforcement of policies and regulations in the SES. Participant 2 summarized this point, saying, “Enforcement is the biggest problem� with the conservation and protection of marine mammals in the SES. Several community scientists described experiences where agencies were unable or unwilling to enforce ordinances and regulations (Table 1C).

Many of the same limitations in capacity for knowledge generation and education were echoed in the context of enforcement. Participant 4 highlighted this, remarking that “There is an enforcement gap because no one’s there to enforce ordinances.� Government officials also noted this lack of capacity, with Government Official 3 remarking that, because of this capacity limitation, enforcement agencies rely on public reporting: “So the reality is we don’t have the staff to go out there hunting down violations…and we never will. So, because of that, we’re very much based on a complaint-driven system.�

This capacity gap on the part of the agencies responsible for enforcement, and the perceived need for greater enforcement, have driven efforts to improve and expand enforcement from both the government agencies and the community scientists. The government agencies rely heavily on community scientists, leaning on their ability to report violations and aid in enforcement. Through their advocacy and activism, the community scientists also have been effective in driving increases in enforcement. Participant 2 described an example related to a temporary fence built during the species’ pupping season, sharing that “It was the community that put the pressure on [the city government] to do that fence, and we finally got the [state agency] permit for it. So, it goes up like clockwork now. However, it took basically a threat of saying we were going to bring down a human chain.�

This example underscores the effectiveness of community scientists’ advocacy for greater enforcement in addition to actively enforcing pro-environmental behavior. In SES, ensuring that the Governance System can effectively regulate the Resource System, manage Resource Units, and influence Users’ behavior is critical. Both community scientists and government officials recognize the importance of these boundary-spanning processes, framed by institutions’ capacity gaps, which limit their ability to provide enforcement that meets regulatory requirements and community expectations. This leaves space for community scientists to fill that gap in a relationship akin to mutualism, where community scientists accommodate capacity limitations and are leveraged by institutions to help fulfill their mandate to provide effective enforcement.

A priority of the community scientists’ was changing behavior by educating people about regulations. Although the community scientists have no authority to provide enforcement, their perceived expertise enables them to encourage greater pro-environmental behavior. As Participant 6 remarked, “People do what they want. Let’s change what they want.â€� This enforcement through education was most commonly directed toward wildlife disturbances. These disturbances were a major concern among the group and, when amounting to harassment, are prohibited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act⁶⁰. Generally, this approach was reported as successful, appearing to be an effective means of providing enforcement from the perspective of the community scientists. As Participant 3 remarked, “And once educated, they’re like, ‘Oh, okay. Didn’t know, I’ll put it back. I’ll be quiet, or, you know, I’ll bring the drone down.’â€�

Despite a lack of authority, community scientists frequently reported taking active roles in enforcement throughout the SES (Fig. 1, enforcement arrows). This took many forms, including confronting people the community scientists believed to be in violation of ordinances. Participant 0, for example, described intervening when they perceive kayakers to be disturbing the pinnipeds: “…There’s just kayaks in there every day, even out there now…we stand up there, yelling at them [to] get back and then call the rental company.�

Other forms of enforcement included constructing barriers to keep people away from areas that community scientists believed should be off-limits. Participant 1 described this, saying: “I went out there with the yellow rope and it looked like hell. Boy, everybody knew they shouldn’t go in that direction.�

Yet, these roles of active enforcement exist in a legal and ethical gray area. The community scientists are neither qualified nor legally empowered to provide enforcement or determine when ordinances are being violated. The government agencies, however, encourage the community scientists’ participation in the process. As Government Official 3 said, “A big thing is having people notice what needs to be done. And I think having a good volunteer corps is kind of essential to that.� The community scientists’ role as “eyes and ears� in enforcement was supported by government officials, and the agencies provided community scientists with training to encourage and improve this practice (Table 1C).

The community scientists expressed frustration over the lack of effectiveness of this method of participating in enforcement. Participant 3 underscored the group’s general sentiment that the community scientists serve a vital yet ambiguous role as boundary spanners for enforcement: “We’re definitely, like, the first line of defense. But, you know, we’re kind of like the pawns. You know, they can just brush us aside really easily and continue doing what they’re doing. And so, without backup from [legal] enforcement, you know, it’s kind of like, I don’t want to call it a losing battle, but it’s a tough battle.�

Community scientists inhabit many roles in SES (Table 1). As discussed, they provide a variety of services in support of scientific learning and research¹⁸, are themselves recipients of educational benefits²⁴, and can foster increased environmental stewardship⁶¹. Between these established processes, however, we find that community scientists play a variety of roles spanning boundaries between and among subsystems. Those boundaries are informed and shaped by local context, and yet they may be generalizable across SES given certain conditions and institutional circumstances. In the case we examined, the common conditions underpinning each of the boundary spanning roles were capacity gaps limiting the ability of institutions—in this case, government agencies—to fill those roles. While in this case we examine government agencies as representative institutions, many social institutions, including NGOs⁵¹ and government natural resource management⁵³ agencies, can be expected to have similar resource and capacity limitations⁵².

Boundary spanning theory provides a useful lens to understand how knowledge generation facilitates a variety of interactions throughout the SES. Limitations to knowledge generation were discussed primarily by the government officials, who described the amount of data needed to make decisions and track compliance with government programs that require data-driven monitoring of the SES. Their agencies simply do not have the capacity or resources to collect the necessary data to fulfill these requirements. They lean heavily on community scientists to span this boundary between the Governance System, the pinnipeds (Resource Unit), and their habitat (the Resource System). Government officials consistently remarked that this occurs not just in the case we examined, but also elsewhere throughout their jurisdictions. From the officials’ perspective, knowledge generation clearly was one of the most important roles of community scientists and often the core motivation reported by the community scientists themselves. However, this benefit was not one-sided; community scientists also frequently reported a sense of satisfaction derived from generating data, particularly when they viewed those data as being directly beneficial to protecting the marine mammals and supporting their management. By engaging in this knowledge-generation process, community scientists also have been shown to enjoy a variety of educational and well-being benefits^24,47.

Education of community members, broadly, was seen both as a primary objective and an essential outcome for the community scientists. Viewing education—related to policy as well as biology—in this way made community scientists particularly aware of and motivated to fill educational gaps. Community scientists and government representatives shared a belief that government agencies were responsible for providing education to the public, but that those institutions lacked the capacity necessary to satisfy this role. Community scientists perceived a responsibility to fill this gap. In their interactions with community members, the community scientists became keenly aware of community members’ general knowledge (or lack thereof) of pinniped biology and related regulations. In our interviews, community scientists frequently discussed the ways in which they believed public awareness and understanding fell short. Community scientists were passionate about marine mammal conservation in the local context. They possessed what they felt was unique and critical knowledge for species protection; thus, they believed it to be their key responsibility to bridge capacity gaps by spanning educational boundaries between the general public and the Governance as well as Resource Systems. In providing this service, community scientists reported satisfaction and pride in their ability to educate the community and government agencies regarding the pinnipeds and environmental systems about which they are so passionate.

Similarly, community scientists were aware of the current state of enforcement of relevant regulations governing this SES. Even more so than with education, the capacity gaps and perceived government agency insufficiencies were highlighted regarding enforcement. Participants remarked with consistent frustration that the regulations are seldom enforced, lamenting that those with authority are either unwilling or unable to effectively enforce regulations and ordinances. Government officials echoed a similar sentiment, remarking that their agencies do not have the capacity to provide comprehensive enforcement of the regulations under their jurisdictions. Like the community scientists, officials were frustrated with these capacity shortfalls. They expressed that, in a perfect world, they would provide more comprehensive enforcement; however, the realities of their capacity prevent them from doing so. Moreover, officials emphasized that these capacity gaps are not unique to this SES and that this collaborative arrangement with community scientists would likely be beneficial, and perhaps even necessary, across other jurisdictions and SES. Although some community scientists expressed frustration that they were placed in the position of providing enforcement, many spoke positively of the opportunity and appeared thankful that they had the knowledge and position to do so, even while acknowledging that government agencies should primarily be fulfilling this role.

In this case, no government agencies in the SES were willfully insufficient; rather, they experienced substantial capacity limitations that influenced the amount of education, enforcement, and knowledge generation activities they were able to undertake. All three agencies included in this study do, in fact, engage in each of these processes to the extent of their ability. Each agency has scientific staff that contribute to and support knowledge generation. Education is provided in formal and informal ways, such as through in-school programs, signage posted along the coast, and natural history museum and visitor center interpretation. Each level of government had enforcement officers—although usually only one for the entire region—and supplemented enforcement with good reporter training for community scientists. These roles were pursued as much as resources allowed; however, community scientists and officials shared the perception that the capacity of government agencies and therefore the activities they were able to perform were insufficient.

In response to this insufficiency, an expanded role for community scientists not only has been accepted, but also encouraged. In this case, government officials and community scientists were perceived as being on the same team with the same motivating objectives: to protect and conserve the natural environment, as well as to educate and inspire others to be good stewards. With this common mission and a shared understanding of the current state of institutional capacity, community scientists were invited both explicitly and implicitly to take on the role of boundary spanners to help fill institutional gaps. The role of community scientists as boundary spanners for knowledge generation, education, and enforcement has become a part of the design of the SES. Agencies at all levels of government rely on the data these community scientists provide to maintain compliance and deepen collective knowledge of the SES as well as other systems in their jurisdiction. Federal agencies provide training to equip community scientists to educate the public. Local governments rely on community scientists to report complaints and assist in enforcement. Ultimately, one of the key beneficiaries of this partnered arrangement and the community scientists’ boundary spanning activities is the community itself. Through these roles, the community receives higher-quality, more effective, and more locally relevant education about the pinnipeds and their environment, is made aware of environmental regulations and the reasoning behind them in a timely and relevant manner, and enjoys the benefits of a conserved and protected coastal SES.

Our data did indicate instances where this alignment of objectives broke down between community scientists and government officials, particularly in enforcement. The process of community scientists providing enforcement is a gray area where the authority, responsibility, and training to enforce regulations with members of the public is firmly vested only in government agencies and their officials. Yet those agencies and officials encourage community scientists’ support through training and institutional designs that rely on public complaints and reports. However, the community scientists in this case frequently viewed their responsibilities as greater than those of a reporter, often actively taking on enforcement duties.

The amount of time spent in the system and the passion these community scientists showed manifested in a sense of proprietary ownership of the SES. This sense of ownership generated a perceived authority that was not granted to them through any formal legal or institutional means; rather, the community scientists created this expanded authority through their own frequent, intense, and deep interaction with the ecosystem; perceived and developed expertise; perception of institutional insufficiencies; and passion for the ecosystem. Officials remarked that the community scientists sometimes crossed the line beyond the role appropriate to a volunteer. This gray area underscores the delicate balance of power in boundary spanning processes in SES. By their nature, Governance Systems hold disproportionate institutional power. The community scientists spanning the boundaries throughout the SES have a form of power that is concurrently self-created as well as given to them, implicitly and explicitly, by those Governance Systems. Interpretations of that power can vary; thus, approaching these kinds of partnerships with understanding and intention is critical to the smooth and equitable functioning of complex SES.

The case we examined provides an example of community scientists engaged in an SES, with many elements emblematic of SES more broadly. We examined a multi-layered Governance System interacting with a dynamic Resource System and an engaged community of resource Users. Both the federal and state government officials frequently remarked that this group of community scientists is not unique in the ways they interact with others in the SES, nor are the institutional capacity limitations unique to this SES. A sense of proprietary ownership and responsibility to educate the community and enforce the regulations drove the ways that this group of community scientists interacted with their SES. This sense of ownership is motivated by the community scientists’ deep connection with their place and a desire to see their coastal ecosystem not only conserved but (re)made into what they perceive as healthy and pristine²⁸. This phenomenon is likely to occur elsewhere and, thus, has substantial implications for management and governance across a variety of marine and terrestrial SES, especially in cases where institutions and government agencies are incentivized to co-design monitoring plans and protocols in support of conservation goals and regulatory responsibilities. A thorough comprehension of the roles and motivations of various actors is critical in understanding how to effectively conserve, protect, and govern SES. Future research should explore these roles in depth in other locations to further understand how local context influences these processes.

Similar boundary spanning roles likely have emerged among other groups of community scientists. The specific nature of these roles will be influenced by the local and situational context of particular SES; however, we strive to provide a generalizable lens through which to view them. By investigating the capacity gaps and institutional insufficiencies present in SES and investigating who is spanning the boundaries to accommodate those gaps, researchers and practitioners can collectively gain a more comprehensive understanding of the many actors involved in these systems. This understanding is crucial in managing and conserving natural resources and environments in a way that is more equitable and sustainable both socially and ecologically.

Study location

As a condition for accessing interview study participants and to protect the participants’ confidentiality, particularly related to recent and ongoing policy and regulatory processes in the study community, the location and identifying details such as agency and species names have been anonymized and generalized in line with norms of qualitative human subjects research. This case-based research was conducted in a coastal community in California, USA. This community is emblematic of much of the region, serving as a home to a socially and economically diverse population; it is also a tourist destination for visitors from around the world. Like much of coastal California, this location is under the jurisdiction of three levels of governance: local, state, and federal. Local government establishes zoning, ordinances, and codes, and it administers a Local Coastal Plan to maintain compliance with the California Coastal Act⁶². The state agency in this study is responsible for ensuring compliance with a variety of state-level land use, conservation, and natural resource protection laws and regulations. The federal agency in this study is responsible for enforcing compliance with federal laws and regulations such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)⁶⁰. Additionally, the study location is within a federally designated marine protected area (MPA) and, therefore, is under the jurisdiction of the agencies responsible for the protection of this MPA.

In the study location, there is a deep community connection with the marine environment and with charismatic marine megafauna, particularly marine mammals. This study specifically investigates activities around the conservation and protection of pinnipeds; a group of semiaquatic marine mammals including Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina), Northern Elephant Seals (Mirounga angustirostris), and California Sea Lions (Zalophus californianus). Although the pinnipeds monitored at this site are not listed under the Endangered Species Act or the IUCN Red List, the MMPA affords the species similar protections to what would be given to a listed species in this jurisdiction. This MMPA protection creates both a regulatory and an enforcement responsibility on the part of government agencies at this study site in terms of the species of interest and the larger MPA.

The multiple interacting layers of government and forms of governance existing within a single SES provide an extrinsically and intrinsically interesting empirical case through which to investigate the processes of boundary spanning by community scientists. A variety of processes, relationships, and power dynamics are present and can be considered which may occur elsewhere where some combination of these interactions take place.

Study participants

This study documents and highlights experiences and perspectives of a group of community scientists (n = 8) and government officials (n = 3) in the study location. The size of the interview participant pool was driven by the population of potential participants in the study area.

The community scientist group has a population of nine individuals; eight of the nine participated in this study. The community scientists are a self-organized group of local residents who live in or near the study community. Under volunteer leadership, this group has gathered data on a local pinniped population at a series of beaches throughout the community for over 20 years. This lengthy history provides the community scientists with deep expertise in the system as well as a notoriety that makes them not only conspicuous, but also trusted across a range of actors and stakeholders in the SES. While this range of interactions and actors may not be present in all SES, they nevertheless combine to create a case with extrinsic value, helping illuminate processes that may occur elsewhere where some combination of these interactions take place. The sites they monitor occur along a popular recreational trail and are frequented year-round by residents and tourists, bringing the community scientists into regular contact with the public and giving them a visible position in the community.

Twelve government officials were approached to participate across the three jurisdictions (local, state, federal); after discussions and vetting of their experience and ability to speak to interactions with community scientists, three government agency members participated, one from each of the three levels of government with jurisdiction and responsibility over the management and conservation of the study location. These officials were recruited based on a contextual knowledge of the study site and other institutions most discussed during the community scientist interviews. Government officials represented institutions with jurisdiction over the marine/coastal environment and natural resources in the study area. Government official participants included the manager of the environmental resources department of a city-level government, an environmental scientist regulator from a state resource agency, and a federal official managing conservation and natural resource protection in a federally designated MPA.

Data collection

Using semi-structured interviews, we documented experiences and perspectives of community scientists and government officials. Interview protocols, following Lareau, included questions and prompts soliciting information about participants’ lived experiences⁶³. The semi-structured approach allowed emergent themes to develop, emphasizing ideas and interactions participants found important. While each interview was unique according to the participants’ roles and experiences, all interviews focused on interactions between community scientists, the general public, and applicable government entities. Theoretical saturation was used as a partial validation check: although new perspectives and data points continued to emerge, few new patterns or larger-scale themes arose by the end of the interviews^64,65,66. All interview participants were provided with a research information sheet prior to the interview and provided verbal informed consent to participate in the interview and to have their anonymized responses included in this work. All human subjects research procedures were approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol #71421).

Data analysis

Interviews were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA)^67,68. Using this approach, we prioritized participants’ “personal perception or account of an object or event as opposed to…an objective statement of the object or event itselfâ€�⁶⁷. We sought to view the interactions between community scientists, government officials, and the public through the eyes of the participants, honoring their subjective experiences and the ways that these interactions felt to them as individuals. Themes emerged inductively and were developed both during the interview process as well as during the coding and analysis of data. Initial interviews with community scientists were conducted using a modified grounded theory approach⁶⁴, allowing themes related to the research question to emerge during early interviews. Later interviews included questions designed to further interrogate emergent themes and gather additional data as well as perspectives to support their analysis. Analysis was performed using NVivo v14.23.0 (13)⁶⁹.

Inclusion and ethics statement

Throughout this research process, we have engaged with community members and government officials in our coastal California, USA, study location. We, the authors, are also familiar with and actively engaged in this community and place. Several sensitive regulatory and policy processes are currently in progress in the study location, and this research addresses a variety of activities relevant to those local processes. The participants in this research have been consulted throughout the process and we have agreed to share our results with local parties to ensure that they inform relevant and important local regulatory and policy processes. All human subjects research procedures were approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol #71421).

Positionality of the authors

In the interest of reflexivity, we acknowledge our collective identity as a research and authorship team. We are all White, educated, professional researchers of mixed European heritage at a private institution of higher education in the United States. Our collective backgrounds include experience in academia and higher education, conservation NGO work, national governments, and private industry. In many ways, our backgrounds and identities mirror those of the research participants in this study: we live in California and we have participated as community scientists to varying extents in the past. In other ways, however, we acknowledge that, as researchers in this process, we have an unequal share of power and have the privilege of investigating this social-ecological system from an outsider perspective, while our participants experience the system as their home. We acknowledge that our positionality and various identities that make us both outsiders and insiders have influenced this work to some extent.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.