ecological theory literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10801006

Review of studies applying Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory in international and intercultural education research

1 School of International Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

Irene Shidong An

2 Discipline of Chinese Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Rebeca Lima, University of Fortaleza, Brazil

The Russian-born American psychologist Bronfenbrenner's bioecological perspective on human development is an ideal framework for understanding how individuals negotiate the dynamic environment and their own identities in international and intercultural education settings. However, a review of the current literature shows that most studies either adopted the earlier version of the theory (i.e., the ecological systems theory) or inadequately presented the most recent developments of the bioecological model (i.e., the process-person-context-time model). The construct of proximal processes—the primary mechanisms producing human development according to Bronfenbrenner—has seldom been explored in depth, which means the true value of bioecological theory is largely underrepresented in international and intercultural education research. This article first presents a review of studies that adopt Bronfenbrenner's theory and then offers future directions for the scope and design of international and intercultural education research.

1 Introduction

Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory on human development 1 is one of the most influential and widely cited theories in the fields of human development and educational psychology (Weisner, 2008 ). Dissatisfied with the lack of child development research directly addressing how development is impacted by wider environments, Bronfenbrenner proposed an ecological model that can provide a framework and common language for conceptualizing the environment and identifying how the interactions and relationships among the components of the ecosystem may affect children's development (Shelton, 2019 ). A popular visual representation of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model is a diagram of the ecological system within which a toddler sits at the center, surrounded by a series of concentric circles demonstrating micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems (Darling, 2007 ). An arrow representing the chronosystem (the influence of time) (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 ) 2 is also added in some diagrams (e.g., Porter and Porter, 2020 ). Although Bronfenbrenner initially formulated the framework to delineate these ecological systems, he later refined it into the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , 1999 ; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 , 2006 ) to comprehensively consider interactions among developmental processes, contextual and individual biological characteristics, and temporal aspects.

This theory, although originated in the field of developmental psychology, is also useful for educational studies since it informs practical applications for the construction of better educational environments. In one of his earlier works, Bronfenbrenner ( 1977 ) introduced an ecological approach to education, emphasizing the dynamic relationships between learners and their environments. He challenged the traditional view of relying solely on laboratory experiments in educational research and advocated for a more holistic and ecologically valid approach to studying educational systems and processes. His focus was on the significance of real-life settings and the dynamic interactions between learners and their environments. Bronfenbrenner emphasized that understanding how individuals learn within educational settings is contingent upon the interplay between the characteristics of learners and the contexts they engage with, highlighting the intricate connections among these environments. His later article (1994), titled Ecological Models of Human Development , published in the International Encyclopedia of Education , demonstrates his considerable influence in educational research. While Bronfenbrenner's theory is most applied in child development and parental education research, it has also found use in various education-related studies, such as educational accountability (Johnson, 2008 ), educational transition (O'Toole et al., 2014 ), computer-assisted language learning (Blin, 2016 ), early childhood education (Tudge et al., 2017 ), and higher education (Mulisa, 2019 ). For instance, Mulisa ( 2019 ) drew inspiration from Bronfenbrenner's theory and advocated for a holistic approach that emphasizes the proximal and active interplay between students and their environments. This approach emphasizes that students' learning should not be disconnected from the social ecology of higher education. Furthermore, educational outcomes should not be attributed solely to students' competence and curriculum quality. Educators and practitioners should employ comprehensive strategies to effectively manage multilevel socioecological factors that impact students' learning.

Specifically for the field of international and intercultural education, the merits of an ecological perspective are elucidated by Elliot and Kobayashi ( 2019 , p. 913):

[A] beautifully complex co-existence of two ecological systems develops once international students move away from their original (home country) ecological system to pursue an education in a new (host country) ecological system. Reciprocally interacting elements from various systems that affect personal, social and learning practices in particular are arguably crucial for these educational sojourners as they can lead to valuable learning opportunities as well as potential conflicts arising from competing influences emanating from the original and the new ecological systems.

Therefore, Bronfenbrenner's theory offers a nuanced and holistic framework that aids educators and policymakers in understanding, respecting, and effectively responding to the environmental complexities inherent in international and intercultural education. It helps educators appreciate the significance of diverse cultural contexts, values, and norms that influence learners, identify the crucial interactions and relationships in the intercultural settings that contribute to a student's adaptation and learning, and encourages students to engage with diverse environments for the development of intercultural competence.

This study aims to review and evaluate the application of Bronfenbrenner's developmental theory, as represented in empirical work on international and intercultural education. As noted in some critical reviews (Darling, 2007 ; Tudge et al., 2009 , 2016 ; Tudge, 2016 ; Jaeger, 2017 ), the ecological theory was evolving as Bronfenbrenner continuously revised, tested and expanded his understanding of development throughout his long career (Shelton, 2019 ), whereas not all studies are aware of its mature version, that is, the bioecological model. Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to recognize the updated version of the theory, which reflects the most recent advance of such a powerful framework. Our objectives are threefold: First, to provide a brief overview of the evolution of the ecological theory and its historical evolution. Second, to evaluate whether the researchers in the fields of international and intercultural education adequately represented the theory in their empirical research. Third, to clarify the value of the updated version of the theory and direct future research.

We will first explain the evolution of Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory and then present some scholars' critics of its misuse in the literature. This is followed by a review and evaluation of the international/intercultural education research that has applied different versions of the theory. It will reveal that the theory is underrepresented in the current international/intercultural education literature. The paper concludes with a discussion of future directions for international and intercultural research.

2 The evolution and different versions of Bronfenbrenner's theory

Several scholars have provided extensive discussion on how Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory of development changed over time, from one that appears to focus primarily on contexts of development to one in which proximal processes are foregrounded (e.g., Rosa and Tudge, 2013 ).

In brief, Bronfenbrenner's early work in the 1970s initially spotlighted environmental contexts in human development due to the prevailing lack of attention to contextual influences within developmental psychology. Therefore, his original ecological perspective “offers a foundation for integrating context into the research model” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 , p. 21) and provides a theoretical framework that allows for the observation of a wide range of contextual influences on development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ). However, Bronfenbrenner was dissatisfied with the fact that the studies applying the model had a pervasive focus solely on contextual elements, resulting in an imbalanced focus on “context without development” (Bronfenbrenner, 1986b , p. 288). This overemphasis on context prompted a pivotal shift in the 1980s toward the integration of person, process, and time variables within the framework (Jaeger, 2017 ). Bronfenbrenner reformulated his model into the bioecological model by the late 1990s. This revised model positioned “proximal processes,” defined as “progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 , p. 996), at its core. This evolution culminated in the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model, a refined iteration that accentuated the interplay of proximal processes, individual characteristics, environmental contexts, and temporal dimensions in human development (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 , 2006 ).

While the earlier ecological model predominantly focused on environmental contexts, its emphasis on context may have led to a narrow perspective, overlooking the dynamic interplay between individuals and their immediate environment. This approach often merely compared individuals in various social or geographical contexts without delving into the developing mechanisms behind observed outcomes, assuming that all individuals in a given environment undergo the same developmental trajectory. Such an approach may, as Bronfenbrenner ( 1988 ) notes, “yield results that are not only likely to be redundant but also highly susceptible to misleading interpretations” (p. 27–28). One of the significant theoretical advancements in the bioecological model is the introduction of a critical distinction between environment and process, absent in the original ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1999 ). While the former (environment) encompasses phenomena like mother-infant interaction and the behavior of others toward the developing person, the latter (process) is defined by its functional relationship both to the environment and to the characteristics of the developing person. The bioecological model proposes that the effects of proximal processes are more influential than those of the environmental contexts in which they occur. The evolution toward the bioecological model integrated the multifaceted interrelationships between developmental processes, individuals, contexts, and time, thereby offering a more comprehensive framework to comprehend the complexities of human development.

Bronfenbrenner ( 1995 ) highlighted Drillien ( 1964 )'s research to exemplify the nature and scientific promise of the updated version of the bioecological model. This longitudinal study assessed factors affecting the development of children with low birth weight compared to those with normal birth weight, across different social classes over 2 years. It found that a proximal process, in this case, mother-infant interaction over time, emerges as a significant predictor of developmental outcomes, as positive maternal interaction significantly reduces behavioral issues observed in the child. The study reveals that the power of this process varies systematically based on environmental context (i.e., social class) and individual characteristics (i.e., birth weight). It highlights that the moderating effects of person and context on the proximal process of mother-infant interaction are not symmetrical. In disadvantaged environments, this interaction has the most significant effect, especially benefiting infants with normal birth weight. Conversely, in more privileged social class settings, it is low-birth-weight infants who derive the greatest advantage from maternal attention during this interaction. Therefore, one should not over- or underestimate the power of any of these factors without considering their interaction with each other. Bronfenbrenner ( 1999 ) suggests that one distinct advantage of the bioecological model, compared to other analytic designs used for analyzing environmental influences on development, lies in its recognition of the interdependency and contextual variations among influencing factors. Thus, it can address the limitations of linear multiple regression models commonly used in psychological research, which assume additive effects, and offer a more differentiated understanding of how these factors contribute to developmental outcomes by considering their synergistic effects.

The upcoming sections will outline the key elements in both the earlier and updated versions of Bronfenbrenner's theory. This will serve as a groundwork for our subsequent analysis of existing studies utilizing these distinct versions of the theory. Many studies adopting the early model of concentric circles of environments use the name ecological systems theory (EST) (e.g., Porter and Porter, 2020 ; Trevor-Roper, 2021 ; Tong et al., 2022 ), which is an outmoded version and a facile representation of Bronfenbrenner's theory (Tudge et al., 2009 , 2016 ). Navarro et al. ( 2022 ) suggest that unless there are justified reasons for utilizing the earlier version, researchers should employ the latest version of the theory—the bioecological theory of human development along with the PPCT research model—and any modifications should be explicitly outlined. A summary of the key constructs in EST and the PPCT model is provided below.

2.1 The EST model

According to Bronfenbrenner ( 1986a , 1989 , 1994 ), the ecological environment of development encompasses the four layered systems detailed in his 1979 monograph and the concept of the chronosystem introduced in his later works. Several studies (e.g., Porter and Porter, 2020 ; Trevor-Roper, 2021 ; Tong et al., 2022 ) examining the influence of these ecological systems on development have referred to Bronfenbrenner ( 1989 )'s theory as EST. Although in a subsequent chapter titled “Ecological Systems Theory”, Bronfenbrenner re-evaluated his ideas from the 1979 monograph, shifting focus from context to person and process, studies using a model named after EST predominantly rely on his earlier conceptualization of ecological systems as developmental contexts. To accurately represent Bronfenbrenner's theory in the articles reviewed in this study, we use EST to denote his earlier attempt to define distinct ecological systems, namely the earlier version of his ecological theory. However, we will cite his definitions from the 1994 entry, as this is where the chronosystem was introduced as the fifth system, providing a comprehensive understanding of all five contextual influences on development as envisioned by Bronfenbrenner.

In the EST model, the development of an individual is influenced by four environmental forces, represented by nested circles (micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystem) and the flow of time (chronosystem). The innermost circle is the Microsystem , which is “a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social, and symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit engagement in sustained, progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in, the immediate environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 39). Settings such as family, school, peer group and workplace are all regarded as microsystems. The next layer of the circle is the Mesosystem , which “comprises the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing the developing person” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 40), representing a system of microsystems. For instance, the linkage between school and family may affect a child's development. Then, there is the Exosystem , consisting of the “linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the developing person, but in which events occur that indirectly influence” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 40) the person's development. One example is the relationship between a child's home and their parents' workplace. The outermost circle is the Macrosystem , or “the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture or subculture” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 40). Finally, the Chronosystem “encompasses change or consistency over time not only in the characteristics of the person but also of the environments in which the person lives” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994 , p. 40).

As Bronfenbrenner's thinking progressed, he called into question the overemphasis on the central role of the environment in human development and gradually made the “marked shift” to a focus on processes and a more prominent role of the developing person, reconceptualizing his theory as a bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994 ). He later labeled his work a PPCT (Process-Person-Context-Time) model of development (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 , p. 996). Each element of this newly evolving framework is outlined below.

2.2 The PPCT model

The PPCT model comprises the four defining properties of the bioecological model, emphasizing a simultaneous investigation of all these elements (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ).

Process in the model, specifically encompassing proximal processes , refers to the “progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 , p. 996) over time. Notably, the sense in which Bronfenbrenner used the term “process” (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1986a , b ) in his earlier writings was different from the later concept of proximal process (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020 ). The later formulations of proximal process illustrate the uniqueness of the concept and its importance to the theory. What is emphasized here is the joint function, involving complex interactions rather than simply the additive effects, of both human traits and the environment. It comprises the “primary mechanisms producing human development” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 , p. 795). It is crucial to clarify the distinctiveness of this concept to grasp its meaning fully and prevent confusion with related concepts such as interaction. In the context of international and intercultural education, proximal processes may involve student-teacher interactions, peer relationships, and engagement with culturally relevant learning materials. However, to qualify as proximal processes, these interactions must adhere to the criteria outlined in Bronfenbrenner and Morris ( 2006 , p. 798). In simple terms, their measurement should encompass: (a) increasing complexity leading to either competence or dysfunction, (b) duration and frequency, and (c) reciprocal interaction (Navarro et al., 2022 , p. 236).

The Person in PPCT model is in contrast to most developmental studies' treatment of the cognitive and socioemotional characteristics of the person as measures of developmental outcomes. It is featured both as an initial factor influencing proximal processes and as a result shaped by the interplay between person, context, and proximal processes across time. It attempts to identify process-relevant person characteristics, which was labeled person forces/disposition (differences of temperament, motivation, persistence, etc.), resources (relate to mental and emotional resources such as past experiences, skills and intelligence and to social and material resources) and demands (personal stimulus such as age, gender, skin color and physical appearance) (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ). These have the “capacity to influence the emergence and operation of proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 , p. 810). While Context includes the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems in the earlier EST model, the macrosystem was addressed more implicitly in writings about bioecological theory and the PPCT model (Navarro et al., 2022 ). The emphasis is on introducing a more significant domain within the microsystem structure, highlighting the unique impact of proximal processes involving interaction with objects and symbols, rather than solely with individuals (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ). Finally, Time extends the original chronosystem (macro-time) to include another two levels: micro-time (what is occurring during some specific activity or interaction) and meso-time (the extent to which activities and interactions occur with some consistency in the developing person's environment) (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ; Tudge et al., 2009 ).

All these elements in the PPCT model work interdependently and synergistically. Synergy is a key concept in the PPCT model, which refers to the cooperative action of these four elements, such that the total effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects (Navarro et al., 2022 ). To operationalize synergy in research, Bronfenbrenner and Morris ( 2006 ) suggest studying interactions between person and context, using multigroup models to analyze differences in developmental trajectories and outcomes across time. Navarro et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate that the PPCT model has a minimum of four comparison groups by choosing two levels of a person characteristic and two levels of a contextual influence. These groups allow for an analysis to identify significant differences in developmental paths and outcomes among different person/context combinations over time.

Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model is no doubt a complex theory (see a summary of its constructs in Table 1 ). Bronfenbrenner ( 1986a ; 1988 ; 1999 ) acknowledged the complexity and ambition of such a comprehensive paradigm, recognizing that very few researchers can address all its components simultaneously in one comprehensive analysis. It is more feasible for researchers to break down these components into smaller combinations that work together cohesively (Bronfenbrenner, 1999 ). He also emphasizes that the purpose of presenting this ambitious design is not to set rigid criteria for all researchers but to offer promising paradigms that generate different research questions. The goal is to alert researchers to the complexities and potential interpretative ambiguities arising from the omission of crucial elements in their selected research designs. Many scholars agree that it is not necessary to include all the factors of the PPCT model in a single study (e.g., Tudge et al., 2016 ; Jaeger, 2017 ). However, Tudge et al. ( 2009 ) asserted that to employ bioecological theory to guide a study, all four elements of the model should be present, or it should be clearly acknowledged why one or more of the elements are not adequately assessed in a research design, so as to preserve the integrity of the theory.

Four constructs and their components in Bronfenbrenner's PPCT model [based on Bronfenbrenner and Morris ( 1998 ) and Tudge et al. ( 2009 )].

2.3 Critics of the misuse of Bronfenbrenner's theory

Some review articles found that the bioecological model had been misused in many studies. These studies either cited the outmoded version or inadequately explored its components while claiming to employ the PPCT model, disregarding the resulting ambiguity due to the omission of certain constructs. For instance, Tudge et al. ( 2009 ) reviewed 25 papers published between 2001 and 2009 and showed that all but four adopted the outmoded version of the theory, which resulted in conceptual confusion and inadequate testing of the theory. After 5 years, Tudge et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a reevaluation of 20 more recent publications. The study found that although 18 of them cited the mature version (after the mid-1990s) of Bronfenbrenner's theory, only two appropriately described, tested, and evaluated the four constructs of the PPCT model. In another commentary, Tudge ( 2016 ) indicates that there are explicit and implicit ways of using Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory: the former explicitly links research variables and methods to bioecological theory, while the latter only examines person–context interactions over time without explicitly connecting these observations to the theory's constructs. This emphasizes the necessity for the appropriate application of Bronfenbrenner's updated theory, requiring explicit recognition of its constructs as influential variables for development, as detailed in Table 1 .

These reviews collectively underscore the persistent issue of inadequate adoption and exploration of the updated bioecological model, especially the nuanced constructs within the PPCT framework. The gaps identified in the literature necessitate a more thorough examination and explicit utilization of the updated theory to advance a comprehensive understanding of human development within international and intercultural education settings.

Their reviews included research up to 2016, when the model was not yet often extended to fields other than developmental science. In fact, the publications included in their reviews are mostly in the realms of family studies and child development. Therefore, this paper will review the current literature on international and intercultural education and evaluate how Bronfenbrenner's theory has been adopted in this research field.

3 Status of employing Bronfenbrenner in international and intercultural education: a review of current studies

The papers to be reviewed in this section are empirical studies in the fields of international and intercultural education that claim to adopt Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory. We followed the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ) to identify and screen the papers in the databases. The PRISMA flow chart is presented in Figure 1 .

PRISMA flow diagram for searching, identifying, screening, and evaluating studies [adapted from Page et al. ( 2021 )].

The terms used for searching studies using Bronfenbrenner's theory followed Tudge et al. ( 2009 ) and Jaeger ( 2017 ): Bronfenbrenner/bioecological/ecological systems theory/process–person–context–time/PPCT. We also used the keywords international/intercultural/study abroad/exchange/mobility/overseas to constrain the research field to international or intercultural education. We searched the Web of Science (WoS) databases (SSCI/SCI-Expanded/ESCI/A&HCI) (up until 12 September 2023) to ensure that the articles obtained were of good quality. We also conducted searches using a specialized database, EBSCO-ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center), up until September 12, 2023, to identify any additional studies specifically relevant to education. The following inclusion criteria were applied to the initial searches in both databases: (a) studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, (b) studies published in English, and (c) empirically designed studies, excluding other types such as editorials and review articles. Additionally, we limited the WoS Categories to psychology, education, and related fields like linguistics and social sciences. We also included multidisciplinary categories to retrieve potential studies. Detailed search strategies, including filters and limits used for both databases, are specified in the Appendix . These searches yielded 182 results in the WoS databases and 130 in the ERIC database, totaling 283 after discarding duplicates.

The two researchers screened these records, encompassing titles, abstracts, and keywords, to determine their eligibility for further evaluation. Initially, they conducted independent screenings, resolving disagreements through collaboration. Subsequently, studies were manually eliminated if they: (a) were non-empirical, (b) did not pertain to intercultural or international education (for example, studies merely containing the keyword “international” but not related to international education), and (c) did not apply Bronfenbrenner's theory (for instance, studies related to ecological and environmental education containing the keyword “ecological” but not employing an ecological perspective to investigate educational issues). Studies with uncertainties regarding their article type, research scope, or theoretical perspective were reserved for further examination. Following this screening, 37 reports were initially considered for retrieval, although the authoritative versions of one article could not be retrieved. The researchers then thoroughly examined the full papers of the remaining 36 studies, discarding ten articles based on the aforementioned criteria. Consequently, 26 studies remained for inclusion in this review, as summarized in Table 2 .

Studies on international and intercultural education employing Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory reviewed in this study.

* Most recent Bronfenbrenner work cited by the author(s). ** Although there is a citation of Bronfenbrenner's work in 2009, the original publication dates back to 1979, so the most recent work cited is Bronfenbrenner's publication in 1993.

Some initial observations can be made from Table 2 . First, although we did not set the starting year for our search period, most eligible studies were published in the recent decade, suggesting that Bronfenbrenner's theory has been applied only to the field of international and intercultural education quite recently. Second, 18 studies cited Bronfenbrenner's work before the mid-1990s or named the theory EST or ecological model/theory; thus, they did not use the mature version. Another seven studies cited his work after 2000 and used the term “bioecological” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998 ; Bronfenbrenner, 2005 ), demonstrating the researchers' awareness of the recent update on the framework. The remaining study (Bhowmik et al., 2018 ), although cited Bronfenbrenner and Morris's ( 2006 ) work, did not use the term “bioecological” (instead, they named the theory “a socioecological model”) 3 . Third, most studies relied solely on qualitative methods to collect and analyze data.

The studies can be grouped into several categories according to how Bronfenbrenner's theory is used: loosely connected to Bronfenbrenner's theory, EST-based, and based on the updated version of the bioecological model (see detailed categorization in Table 3 ). Recognizing that the application of Bronfenbrenner's theory is still in its infancy in international and intercultural education research, our objective is not to critique individual articles but to understand the extent to which the empirical studies we reviewed reflect the recent development of the theory.

Categorization of the studies reviewed.

3.1 Studies loosely connected to Bronfenbrenner's theory

Four studies (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2010 ; Bhowmik et al., 2018 ; Elliot and Kobayashi, 2019 ; Trevor-Roper, 2021 ) are only loosely connected to Bronfenbrenner's theory, although they cite his work, either the early or the mature version. These studies only mention Bronfenbrenner in their papers but have not systematically applied his theory. Bhowmik et al. ( 2018 ) cite Bronfenbrenner's work without using the constructs of his theory for data analysis. Elliot and Kobayashi ( 2019 ) only mention the coexistence of two ecosystems of international students but have not specified the components in each layer of the ecosystem. Suárez-Orozco et al. ( 2010 ) reference Bronfenbrenner's early work (Bronfenbrenner, 1977 ) to highlight the significance of contexts and characteristics affecting students' performance. However, while their research explores the influences of school, family, and individual characteristics on immigrant children's academic trajectories, it lacks a systematic foundation based on Bronfenbrenner's theory. Moreover, the study findings are not explicitly interpreted in connection with Bronfenbrenner's framework. Similarly, Trevor-Roper ( 2021 ) only briefly discusses that the EST model is helpful in appreciating the complexity of higher education environments in international education but does not follow the model's constructs to frame the data analysis.

In other words, Bronfenbrenner's theory only serves as an overarching philosophical perspective rather than an operational model that guides detailed data analysis procedures in these studies. Such an approach partially overlaps with Tudge ( 2016 ) description of the “implicit way” of using Bronfenbrenner's theory, which only examines person–environment interactions and the complexity of the environment. This can be problematic since it oversimplifies the richness of Bronfenbrenner's theory and does not sufficiently demonstrate its value for international and intercultural education.

3.2 Studies based on EST

Twenty studies (McBrien, 2011 ; Jessup-Anger and Aragones, 2013 ; Elliot et al., 2016a , b ; Li and Que, 2016 ; Taylor and Ali, 2017 ; Vardanyan et al., 2018 ; Zhang, 2018 ; Emery et al., 2020 ; Merchant et al., 2020 ; Porter and Porter, 2020 ; Conceição et al., 2021 ; Winer et al., 2021 ; Chkaif et al., 2022 ; Ngo et al., 2022a , b ; Tong et al., 2022 ; Xu and Tran, 2022 ; Marangell, 2023 ; Rokita-Jaśkow et al., 2023 ) are based on the early version, that is, the EST model, although some of them cite Bronfenbrenner's later work and use the term “bioecological.” Three sub-categories can be identified: partial adoption, full adoption, and extended adoption of EST.

3.2.1 Partial adoption of EST

Ten of the 20 studies, including Jessup-Anger and Aragones ( 2013 ), Elliot et al. ( 2016b ), Li and Que ( 2016 ), Taylor and Ali ( 2017 ), Vardanyan et al. ( 2018 ), Emery et al. ( 2020 ), Merchant et al. ( 2020 ), Porter and Porter ( 2020 ), Winer et al. ( 2021 ), and Rokita-Jaśkow et al. ( 2023 ) are all classified as partial adoption.

Elliot et al. ( 2016b )'s study on international students' academic acculturation focuses exclusively on the chronosystem in the EST model. They identify different forms of personal transition, societal transition, and academic transition of international students. Conversely, Emery et al. ( 2020 )'s study explores the experiences of internationally adopted youths across various systems (micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems), with a specific focus on the mesosystem, where schools are pivotal in providing support. Their study does not address the chronosystem.

Jessup-Anger and Aragones ( 2013 ) primarily delve into the influence of developmentally instigative characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1993 ) on interactions of study abroad students in host countries, discussing micro- and mesosystems. In Merchant et al. ( 2020 )'s work on refugee students, they highlight the mesosystem (interactions between families, peers, and schools) and exosystem (neighborhood and community organizations) as influential in shaping students' wellbeing. Li and Que ( 2016 )'s study focuses on integration challenges faced by newcomer youths in a Canadian city, emphasizing themes related to the exosystem (public transportation), microsystem (family support, social interaction), and individual factors like language barriers and job pressures. Porter and Porter ( 2020 ) analyze factors influencing Japanese college students' decisions to study abroad, considering various ecosystem layers (micro- and mesosystems as immediate environments, and exo-, macro-, and chronosystems as distant environments). They omit the mesosystem due to limited participant input. Conversely, Taylor and Ali ( 2017 ) incorporate the mesosystem while excluding the exosystem in their examination of international students' adjustment to studying in the UK. They do not distinctly explain the rationale for excluding the exosystem, potentially due to data limitations.

Rokita-Jaśkow et al. ( 2023 )'s study on the school socialization of bi/multilingual children examines the microsystem (teachers), mesosystem (classmates and parents), and exosystem (representatives of the education system). However, it omits the macro- and chronosystems within the EST framework without providing an explanation. Vardanyan et al. ( 2018 ) employ Bronfenbrenner's EST concepts in their data analysis, emphasizing the micro- and mesosystems, with limited focus on the chronosystem. In contrast, Winer et al. ( 2021 ) explore immigrants' children's sense of belonging within the microsystem (their rooms in their homes), mesosystem (a shared living building), and macrosystem (their neighborhood). However, they do not introduce or investigate the exo- and chronosystems.

These studies collectively illustrate that the EST is a multifaceted model, demanding multiple investigations to comprehensively explore the entire ecological system (Elliot et al., 2016b ). However, there is a need for more explicit justification when certain constructs within the model are excluded from analysis, as this exclusion affects the overall comprehensiveness of the theory.

3.2.2 Full adoption of EST

Four studies investigate all the components of EST. McBrien ( 2011 ) delves into the challenges encountered by refugee mothers as they adapt to settled lives and explores their children's schooling experiences in the context of all the components within the EST. Ngo et al. ( 2022b ) investigate the impact of contextual factors on the professional development experiences of Vietnamese English as a foreign language lecturers across different contextual levels within the EST model. Tong et al. ( 2022 ) use the EST model to offer a visual metaphorical illustration of the major themes at each level of an Australian–Chinese student's developmental ecosystem in Hong Kong and tease out the risk and protective elements in this ecosystem that influenced the student's developmental trajectory. Zhang ( 2018 ) examines how academic advising with international students was shaped by individual backgrounds and multiple layers of environmental influences.

These studies meticulously examine each construct of EST within the context of international and intercultural education and demonstrate the relevance of the model in fostering positive interactions in intercultural settings.

3.2.3 Extended adoption of EST

Six articles extend the model to some degree. Chkaif et al. ( 2022 ) combine EST with Yu et al. ( 2021 ) to generate a refined model for international education, with the macrosystem being revised to include the global dimension. Conceição et al. ( 2021 ) expand upon the investigation of the chronosystem within the EST by integrating transformative learning theory to illustrate the personal growth and development of study abroad students over time. Elliot et al. ( 2016a ) propose an academic acculturation model illustrating the transition between two ecosystems of a study-abroad sojourn. Marangell ( 2023 )'s study on students' experiences at an internationalized university applies a person-in-context (PiC) model (Volet, 2001 ), which adapts Bronfenbrenner's EST. The PiC model centers on the “experiential interface,' where individual and environmental dimensions interact, and explores how congruence between these dimensions fosters motivated and productive learning. Ngo et al. ( 2022a ) incorporate EST into an integrated framework for effective professional development, encompassing three dimensions: context, content, and process. Finally, Xu and Tran ( 2022 ) extend the investigation of the person at the center of EST by employing the needs–response agency theory.

These studies provide nuanced perspectives that enhance EST's applicability in international and intercultural education and underscore the importance of the continuous evolution of the theory to address the complexities of educational systems in an increasingly interconnected world. However, the expansion of the theory also introduces extra complexity and challenges in operationalizing and measuring the constructs, and care should be taken to disentangle various factors.

The EST-based studies reviewed above offer valuable insights into international and intercultural education within Bronfenbrenner's early EST model by discussing various aspects, such as the impact of cultural contexts, policy frameworks, academic transitions, peers, and advisors, all of which are crucial in understanding educational experiences in diverse cultural settings. Nevertheless, the absence of the PPCT model in these studies limits the exploration of the dynamic processes and interactions between individuals, their contexts, and the outcomes of international and intercultural education.

3.3 Studies based on the updated version of the bioecological model

The final two studies (Xu et al., 2021 ; Liu et al., 2022 ) was more pertinent to the bioecological model, although they do not mention the PPCT model. They differ from other studies reviewed above in that they not only recognize the existence of the mature version of Bronfenbrenner's theory but also employ it to guide their data analysis. For instance, Liu et al. ( 2022 ) state that while they acknowledge the influence of ecological systems in Bronfenbrenner's early model, they further embrace his later theoretical development of the bioecological system, which considers the individual as an active agent in proximal processes. Xu et al. ( 2021 ) also comment in their article that previous studies applying Bronfenbrenner's theory to address academic acculturation neglect a thorough identification of individual and contextual forces and fail to delineate the dynamic interactions between them. Therefore, both studies employ the updated version of the theory by highlighting how the “person” constructs (dispositions, demands, and resources) interact with environmental contexts to shape development. Liu et al. ( 2022 ) investigate the academic career development of Chinese returnees with overseas PhDs. (CROPs) and find that preferences for stability (dispositions), social networking establishment and maintenance (demands), and a lack of experience with local academic and publication cultures (resources) are important factors. Xu et al. ( 2021 ) examine Chinese doctoral students' international education experiences in Australia and suggest that personal characteristics, such as inward management practices (dispositions), social networking maintenance (demands), research outputs, and health status (resources), are the engine of development.

These two studies contribute to the field of international and intercultural education by recognizing and utilizing this updated version of Bronfenbrenner's theory. However, both studies only briefly mention the concept of “proximal processes”—the core of the mature version of the bioecological model—without identifying what they were and how they contributed to development. For instance, Xu et al. ( 2021 ) acknowledge that the core driving force in the bioecological system relies on PhD students' ability to initiate their autonomy as they negotiate, utilize, and create resources for their development in both their home and host environments. However, they state that “a fine-grained elaboration of these practices is neither the focus of this study nor possible to accomplish in a piece of this length” (p. 1354). Notably, these practices embody potential proximal processes of interest in the bioecological model. Furthermore, neither study adopts a PPCT design. Despite acknowledging the interplay between Person and Context factors in development, the absence of specifying the proximal processes mediating these effects limits the studies from achieving the synergistic design envisioned in Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory.

3.4 Summary

This review indicates that the application of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory in international and intercultural education research is still in its infancy. Most studies have adopted the elements of EST to explain international and intercultural contexts for education, while the updated version of PPCT has been inadequately explored. In the study where PPCT is referenced (Emery et al., 2020 ), it is mentioned as background information rather than being utilized as a framework for interpreting empirical findings. Proximal processes, crucial in the PPCT model and critical to international and intercultural education, have seldom been explored in depth, which means that the true value of Bronfenbrenner's theory is largely underrepresented.

4 Conclusions and future directions

Bronfenbrenner's theory has undergone continuous refinements and reformulations over time and has evolved from an ecological to a bioecological theory, incorporating a four-element model (PPCT), in which the proximal process is given pride of place (Tudge et al., 2016 ). Previous reviews have criticized the misuse or partial representation of Bronfenbrenner's theory in the field of developmental science, especially in family studies and child development (Tudge et al., 2009 , 2016 ; Tudge, 2016 ). However, as Bronfenbrenner's theory has become influential in other fields in recent years, how the theory has been employed in these fields is a compelling question. This review addresses this issue and provides new insights for scholars in the field of international and intercultural education who are interested in applying Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory.

In international and intercultural education, students experience a collide of at least two ecosystems consisting of complex elements and relationships. Therefore, Bronfenbrenner's bioecological perspective on human development is an ideal framework for understanding how an individual negotiates the dynamic environment and their own identity in these intercultural settings (Elliot and Kobayashi, 2019 ; Xu et al., 2021 ; Xu and Tran, 2022 ). The theoretical merit of the PPCT model is that it allows researchers to capture the dynamics and relationships between organisms and environments rather than presenting the developing person and influencing contextual factors discretely. Although the fields of education and development have benefited from a focus on contextual influences on human development situated within the early ecological model of Bronfenbrenner ( 1979 ), the PPCT model can inspire new ways of thinking about contextual influences (Bronfenbrenner, 1999 ). Firstly, this model refines the concept of microsystem by emphasizing proximal processes within these microsystems, identifying them as pivotal mechanisms through which development occurs. Secondly, the PPCT model posits that these proximal processes act as moderators, shaping the impact of contextual influences. Bronfenbrenner's work underlines that while contexts exert significant influence, the quality and nature of proximal processes within these contexts can moderate or amplify their effects on individual development. This model thereby deepens our understanding by emphasizing the interactive and dynamic nature of contextual influences.

However, a review of the existing literature indicates that when Bronfenbrenner's theory is applied to international and intercultural education research, either the earlier version of EST is used or the mature version is only partially applied, without paying the due attention to proximal processes and how they are jointly influenced by the personal characteristics, various levels of contexts and time variables. Based on this review, we propose the following future directions for international and intercultural education research regarding theoretical perspectives and methodological designs.

4.1 Future directions for theoretical perspectives

For scholars seeking to apply Bronfenbrenner's theory in their empirical studies, we propose two recommendations.

First, consistent with other scholars' previous reminders (e.g., Tudge et al., 2009 ; Rosa and Tudge, 2013 ; Navarro et al., 2022 ), we also emphasize on the importance for studies to clearly specify which version of the theory they are adopting and to provide a rationale for their choices. This clarity will help avoid the “two-fold disservice” pointed out by Tudge et al. ( 2009 , p. 198) and thus allow for an accurate understanding of the theoretical framework, enhance the comparability and consistency of research findings, contribute to the cumulative knowledge in the field, and facilitate the comparison and synthesis of findings across studies. Scholars may choose to adopt the early version of the theory, the EST model, if their study primarily focuses on environmental factors, or they may opt for the mature version of the theory, the PPCT model, if they aim to highlight the crucial impact of proximal processes, and their dynamic interplay with individuals, their characteristics, and their immediate and remote environmental contexts and historical time. However, it is misleading if a study claims to use Bronfenbrenner's “bioecological” theory and only refers to the EST model without acknowledging the updated PPCT model or if a study only partially adopts some constructs in either model without explaining the rationale. Researchers should carefully consider whether a theory is appropriately represented to ensure the credibility and robustness of the research.

Second, to advance the field of international and intercultural education research, we suggest employing the mature version of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory, which emphasizes the significance of proximal processes. This shift in emphasis can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how individuals actively engage with their educational environments. In child development research, a study involving the PPCT model may examine how regularly occurring parent–child interactions, such as joint storybook reading (e.g., Barnyak, 2011 ), are influenced by important characteristics of the child and some relevant aspects of the context (Tudge et al., 2009 ). Similarly, in international and intercultural education, researchers can gain deeper insights into the everyday activities that shape individuals' development in diverse cultural contexts by focusing on proximal processes. For example, interactions with local people and peers are two different types of proximal processes that an international student may encounter in the host country, which may have either positive or reverse effects on their development. Merçon-Vargas et al. ( 2020 ) further propose the notion of inverse proximal processes to expand the conceptual framework of proximal processes and to address the potential negative impact of certain interactions and activities on human development, particularly in disadvantaged environments. This concept suggests that in disadvantaged environments, detrimental or dysfunctional interactions occurring regularly over extended periods of time are linked to higher levels of dysfunction and lower competency. The notion of inverse proximal processes allows for a more inclusive and expansive use of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory.

One question concerns the identification and measurement of proximal processes for investigation, and there is no straightforward answer as Bronfenbrenner did not provide a definitive guideline. In Drillien ( 1964 ) study, Bronfenbrenner identified mother-infant interaction as a proximal process, measured by maternal responsiveness through family observations and interviews. He highlighted that a more comprehensive understanding of proximal processes should also encompass the infant's responsiveness to changes in the mother's behavior, reflecting the reciprocal nature of proximal processes. For Small and Luster ( 1990 )'s study, parental monitoring was identified as a proximal process, assessed through a questionnaire on adolescents' perceptions of parental efforts to stay informed and set limits on their activities outside the home. These examples indicate that diverse tools such as observations, interviews, and questionnaires can measure proximal processes, provided they align with the concept's definition. Therefore, we concur with Navarro et al.'s ( 2022 ) guideline that measures of proximal processes should consider: (a) increasing complexity over time (either inverse or positive); (b) reciprocity between the developing individual and the interacting person(s)/object(s); and (c) duration (i.e., microtime) and frequency (i.e., mesotime) to ensure regular occurrence over an extended period. We also regard it appropriate to design measurement methods tailored to specific research questions.

Previous literature in international and intercultural education has identified key processes contributing to student development, such as interacting with native speakers (Campbell, 2011 ), engaging in cultural activities (Isabelli-García, 2006 ), and attending international courses (Jiang et al., 2023 ). Therefore, studies aiming to investigate these as proximal processes need to examine the level of complexity, mutual engagement, and regularity of these activities and their changes over time. For instance, a study on interacting with native speakers might scrutinize conversation topics for complexity, native speakers' responses for reciprocity, and the duration and frequency of these conversations for regularity. Meanwhile, research on cultural activities might explore the complexity and regularity of different tasks within these activities and how they stimulate subjects' “attention, exploration, manipulation, elaboration, and imagination” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 , p. 798).

By following these recommendations, scholars can enhance the applicability and relevance of Bronfenbrenner's theory in the context of international and intercultural education and contribute to the advancement of the empirical field.

4.2 Future directions for methodological designs

Future research in international and intercultural education can benefit from several key methodological considerations. First, studies framed by the bioecological perspective should aim to meet the requirements of a PPCT study design. Bronfenbrenner did not conduct his own research using the PPCT model; instead, he referenced other scholars' work to showcase his concepts. Therefore, interpreting and applying the PPCT model can pose challenges. Navarro et al. ( 2022 ) provide a detailed guideline of how a study should address all the PPCT components to ensure that its design enables a “Bronfenbrenerian synergistic analysis” (p. 240). For instance, the guidelines highlight that PPCT studies must be longitudinal, as the outcome must be measured at a developmentally relevant time point after the proximal process(es), which, as another requirement, should be examined regarding increasing complexity, reciprocity, and duration and frequency. They also note that when applying the bioecological theory and the PPCT model, it is crucial to carefully choose the pertinent elements of person, context, process, and time by thoroughly reviewing empirical studies and pertinent theoretical perspectives. Meanwhile, the synergy among these components should be elaborated, which means the “cooperative action of discrete agencies such that the total effect is greater than the sum of two or more effects—taken independently” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 , p. 800), suggesting the use of multigroup models (Navarro et al., 2022 ). Navarro et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate that the PPCT model allows for the comparison of at least four groups based on different person/context combinations. Quantitative research can use mediational models to assess developmental differences over time, while qualitative researchers will also need to ensure their individual participant selection meets these criteria.

By aligning the research design with the principles and guidelines outlined, researchers can ensure a comprehensive and systematic examination of the four components in the PPCT model. Let us consider how the studies based on the updated version of the bioecological model reviewed above can be redesigned to more closely approximate the PPCT design. For instance, consider Liu et al. ( 2022 )'s research where they identify several factors influencing CROPs' career development, including: (a) the lack of recent experience and familiarity with local academic and publication cultures hindered career development, (b) interactions in the microsystem with senior leaders, line managers, and colleagues had negative impacts, leading to academic pressure and mental health concerns, and (c) the macrosystem of Chinese higher education, driven by the ambition to establish world-class universities, shaped the microsystem's interactional hostility due to marketization and globalization influences in international higher education. Building on these findings, a research approach based on the PPCT model might explore the relationships between these factors using a longitudinal design. Subjects could be categorized along two dimensions: CROPs' familiarity with local academic publication cultures (a Person factor) and the type of university they are working in (a Context factor). This differentiation might involve a national funded university aiming for higher rankings in the Chinese higher education system, reflecting a specific macrosystem, and Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Universities, which mirror a distinct macrosystem akin to Western educational culture. Interactions with senior leaders might serve as a proximal process, varying in positivity or negativity. Developmental outcomes could encompass academic competence (e.g., publications, grants, self-efficacy) and dysfunction (e.g., stress, mental health issues). One potential outcome of such a design might reveal that positive interactions with senior leaders foster academic competence among those familiar with local academic cultures and alleviate academic stress among those less acquainted. However, these interaction effects may differ between national funded universities and Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Universities. This assumption draws from Liu et al. ( 2022 )'s evidence highlighting that in the Chinese culture, “Big Figures” (Da Lao in Chinese) impact resource allocation, potentially influencing the culture of national funded university more significantly. Such insights would deepen our understanding of the intricacies within intercultural settings in higher education.

The PPCT model also offers a means to address conflicting research findings in international and intercultural education research. In the sphere of study abroad research, for instance, there has been extensive exploration of outcomes and influencing factors such as living conditions (Allen et al., 2006 ), social networks (Magnan and Lafford, 2012 ), and duration of stay (Dwyer, 2004 ). However, this body of work often yields conflicting or overly generalized conclusions (Pinar, 2016 ). Take living condition as an example, while some studies emphasize the positive influence of living with host families on language and intercultural competence development (Allen et al., 2006 ), others, such as those by Isabelli-García ( 2006 ) and Jackson ( 2009 ), highlight potential negative effects if interaction with the family is troubled or almost non-existent. Critiques by Coleman ( 2013 ) emphasize the oversight of contextual uniqueness and individual variables in demonstrating study abroad benefits, echoed by Ushioda ( 2009 ) emphasis on the varied impact of social or individual factors. In considering the bioecological model, the study abroad setting does not predict learning outcomes in isolation; rather, it is the activities (proximal processes) in which the students engage that wield greater influence. Therefore, employing a PPCT design could effectively address these controversies by illuminating how varied proximal processes produce differed developmental outcomes as a joint effect of individual characteristics and contextual factors.

Let us envision a hypothetical study that utilizes the PPCT design to navigate the controversial outcomes regarding the influence of host family contexts on students' development of intercultural communication competence. Previous research has demonstrated that the experience of residing with host families may yield positive or negative outcomes contingent upon the established relationships, influencing the shared time and dynamics of interactions between family members and students (Lafford and Collentine, 2006 ). Extensive evidence has indicated that cooperative roles adopted by host families facilitate high-quality interactions, allowing students to practice language skills, receive corrective feedback, and acquire new insights, thereby positively impacting linguistic and cultural knowledge (Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart, 2002 ; Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight, 2004 ; McMeekin, 2006 ). Conversely, Magnan and Lafford ( 2012 ) highlight factors such as limited patience to communicate with students having lower language proficiency, time constraints due to schedule disparities, interpersonal incompatibility, or stressful coexistence, negatively affecting the learning process. In these studies, individual factors such as language proficiency and personality, along with contextual elements encompassing host family dynamics, are often considered as working independently on students' development of intercultural competence. However, the PPCT design seeks to surpass this simplistic additive effect by investigating the synergistic impact of diverse individual and contextual factors. Within this design, subjects can be concurrently stratified across both personal and contextual dimensions. For instance, different levels of student language proficiency could be matched with variations in host family dynamics, including experiences in intercultural encounters, cultural exchange opportunities, and family routines. Proximal process, in this context, delineates the interaction between students and host families, gauged not solely by the depth and degree of mutual engagement in conversations but also by their frequency and consistency, thereby embedding a Time factor. Furthermore, employing a pre-test and post-test design would allow for the observation of development over time.

The bioecological model can provide hypothetical outcomes of implementing such a design. According to the bioecological model, the potency of proximal processes is intricately tied to the characteristics of the developing individual, the environment, and the specific developmental outcome under scrutiny. Building on Small and Luster ( 1990 ) findings, Bronfenbrenner and Morris ( 2006 ) posited a hypothesis: for developmental outcomes of competence 4 , proximal processes exert the strongest influence within the most advantageous ecological niches. Therefore, a speculative outcome from the proposed research design suggests that student-host interaction might yield the greatest positive impact within favorable host family dynamics, particularly among students displaying the highest language proficiency. This proposition underscores the notion that same levels of host family dynamics may not yield identical effects across all students. Neglecting this distinction disregards the potential for students with superior language skills to benefit more from high-quality student-host interaction, perhaps due to their ability to utilize richer language resources during such interactions. Practically, these hypothetical findings imply diverse intervention strategies tailored to students with varying language proficiency levels to optimally allocate resources within study abroad programs. For instance, interventions targeting students with higher language proficiency might emphasize engaging in proximal processes that demand advanced language skills. Conversely, students with lower language proficiency could benefit from focused support to match them with host families known for patience and assistance in language development. This approach would ensure maximum benefit from proximal processes aligned with their proficiency levels.

These hypothetical implications derived from the PPCT model in the two examples above await empirical validation through future research endeavors. Nonetheless, this illustration posits that the PPCT framework presents distinct advantages in both international and intercultural research and practical application domains. Firstly, it helps enhance predictive precision. By comprehensively analyzing the intricate interactions between multiple factors, the PPCT model offers greater predictive accuracy regarding the effectiveness of interventions or strategies across diverse scenarios or individuals. Secondly, it offers a holistic understanding of development. Embracing personal attributes, contextual elements, and developmental processes across time, the implications derived from the PPCT model encourages holistic approaches to educational interventions. Thirdly, it can inform tailored interventions. The PPCT model facilitates the identification of synergistic relationships among variables, enabling researchers to craft interventions precisely tailored to specific contexts or individuals. Finally, it can also help optimize resource allocation for maximum positive outcomes.

Another methodological implication is that to enhance the depth and richness of insights, future studies can diversify their data collection and analysis methods by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Table 2 shows that the research reviewed in this study relies largely on qualitative approaches. However, Navarro et al. ( 2022 ) provide some useful illustrative examples of how both quantitative and qualitative researchers can utilize bioecological theory and PPCT. Jaeger ( 2017 ) recommends that a hierarchical linear modeling analysis might best approximate Bronfenbrenner's preference for research since it considers a wide range of complex variables for development. In addition to traditional qualitative methods, researchers can also consider employing the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method, which offers a systematic approach to analyzing complex causal relationships by identifying configurations of conditions that lead to specific outcomes. It is particularly appropriate for capturing the complexity of Bronfenbrenner's theory and allows researchers to identify patterns and combinations of conditions that are necessary or sufficient for certain educational outcomes. For example, they can examine how different combinations of individual characteristics, environmental factors, and developmental processes interact to influence educational experiences in diverse cultural settings.

Furthermore, to foster innovation in methodological design, researchers can draw inspiration from other disciplines to expand the methodological toolbox in the field of international and intercultural education. For instance, employing biomarkers as a measure of physiological responses (Yrttiaho et al., 2021 ) within the bioecological framework offers interesting possibilities for future research (Navarro et al., 2022 ) and could provide valuable insights into the biological underpinnings of individuals' adaptation and development within diverse cultural contexts. Such innovative approaches can offer unique perspectives and contribute to a more holistic understanding of the complex interplay between individual, culture, and education. These methodological considerations can inform researchers to advance the field, deepen our understanding of educational experiences in diverse cultural settings, and contribute to evidence-based practices that promote positive educational outcomes for individuals in intercultural contexts.

In conclusion, this article has reviewed studies utilizing Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory in the context of international and intercultural education. These studies have demonstrated the value of employing this theoretical framework to understand the complex interactions between individuals and their environments in diverse cultural contexts. While some studies have focused on the early version of the theory, others have recognized the more recent bioecological model. Moving forward, it is crucial for researchers to specify the version of the theory they are adopting and to consider incorporating the mature version of the PPCT model. Additionally, future research should explore innovative methodological approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics at play in international and intercultural education.

Author contributions

PT and IA designed the study and discussed the findings collaboratively. PT was the main contributor for drafting the manuscript. IA contributed extensively to the revised version. All authors agreed on the final version of the manuscript.

Search strategy for WoS and ERIC databases

Search strategy for wos databases.

Boolean: (TS=(Bronfenbrenner OR bioecological OR ecological systems theory OR process–person–context–time OR PPCT)) AND TS=(international OR intercultural OR study abroad OR exchange OR mobility OR overseas).

• Document Types: Article
• NOT Document Types: Proceeding Paper or Book Chapters
• Languages: English
• Web of Science Index: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED); Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AandHCI)
• Web of Science Categories: Development Studies; Education Educational Research; Education Scientific Disciplines; Education Special; Psychology Education; International Relations; Language Linguistics; Linguistics; Multidisciplinary Sciences; Psychology; Psychology Applied; Psychology Biological; Psychology Clinical; Psychology Developmental; Psychology Educational; Psychology Experimental; Psychology Multidisciplinary; Psychology Social; Social Issues; Social Sciences Biomedical; Social Sciences Interdisciplinary; Social Work; Sociology.

Search strategy for the ERIC database

Boolean: (Bronfenbrenner OR bioecological OR ecological systems theory OR process–person–context–time OR PPCT) AND (international OR intercultural OR study abroad OR exchange OR mobility OR overseas).

• Peer Reviewed
• Journal or Document: Journal Article (EJ)
• Publication Type: Journal Articles
• Language: English.

Funding Statement

This study is supported by World Languages and Cultures Research Fund granted by China Center for Language Planning and Policy Studies (Project No. WYZL2022HB0010), Wuhan University Office of International Affairs Research Fund (Project No. 600405502), and Wuhan University- Duke Kunshan University Joint Research Platform Seed Fund (Project No. XXWHUDKUZZJJ202301).

1 As will be elucidated in more detail in this paper, Bronfenbrenner's theory evolved from an early version of the ecological systems theory to a bioecological model. The general term “ecological theory” is used to encompass both the early version and its recent reformulation of the bioecological paradigm.

2 In Bronfenbrenner ( 1986a , 1989 )'s earlier theorization, the chronosystem represents a particular type of research design, which should not be confused with the various environmental systems differentiated in his 1979 monograph. However, in his 1994 work, chronosystems are treated as a fifth systems parameter that “extends the environment into a third dimension” (p. 40). Thus, a full representation of Bronfenbrenner's theorization of ecological systems as contexts of development encompasses the four-layered systems conceptualized in 1979, as well as the chronosystem in his subsequent works.

3 Bhowmik et al. ( 2018 ) did not explain why they chose “socioecological model” over more established terms. This lack of clarification leaves room for various interpretations. It might suggest a focus on social aspects within the ecological framework or a departure from the strict bioecological perspective. However, without the authors' explicit explanation, it is hard to determine their intent or whether it is a misapplication. Therefore, clear terminological justifications are crucial, especially when diverging from recognized theoretical labels. This absence of clarification might lead to misunderstandings or ambiguities in understanding Bronfenbrenner's theory and its adaptations.

4 Development, as per the bioecological model, serves as a neutral term encompassing both positive changes ( competence ) and negative changes ( dysfunction ) (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ). The hypothesis regarding the developmental outcome of dysfunction differs from that concerning competence. For instance, in Drillien's study, proximal processes had their greatest buffering effect on development of problematic behaviors of infants in the most disadvantaged environment but on the healthiest infants (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Allen H., Dristas V., Mills N. (2006). “Cultural learning outcomes and summer study abroad,” in Identity and Second Language Learning: Culture, Inquiry, And Dialogic Activity In Educational Contexts , ed M. Mantero (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; ), 189–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnyak N. C. (2011). A qualitative study in a rural community: investigating the attitudes, beliefs, and interactions of young children and their parents regarding storybook read alouds . Early Childh. Educ. J. 39 , 149–159. 10.1007/s10643-011-0445-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhowmik M. K., Cheung R. Y. M., Hue M. T. (2018). Acculturative stress and coping strategies among mainland Chinese university students in Hong Kong: a qualitative inquiry . Am. J. Orthopsych. 88 , 550–562. 10.1037/ort0000338 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blin F. (2016). “Towards an 'ecological' CALL theory,” in The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology , eds F. Farr and L. Murray (Routledge), 39–54. 10.4324/9781315657899.ch3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development . Am. Psychol. 32 , 513–531. 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1986a). “Recent advances in research on the ecology of human development,” in Development as Action Context: Problem Behavior and Normal Youth Development , eds. R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, and G. Rudinger (New York, NY: Springer; ), 286–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1986b). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives . Dev. Psychol. 22 , 723–742. 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1988). “Interacting systems in human development: Research paradigms present and future,” in Persons in context: Developmental processes , eds. N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, and M. Moorhouse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 25–49. 10.1017/CBO9780511663949.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1989). Ecological systems theory . Ann. Child Dev. 6 , 187–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1993). “The ecology of cognitive development: research models and fugitive findings,” in Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments , eds. R. H. Wozniak and K. W. Fischer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 3–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1994). “Ecological models of human development,” in International encyclopedia of education , eds. M. Gauvain, and M. Cole (New York, NY: Freeman) 37–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1995). “Developmental ecology through space and time: a future perspective,” in eds Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development , P. Moen, G. H. J. Elder, and K. Luscher (American Psychological Association), 619–647. 10.1037/10176-018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (1999). “Environments in developmental perspective: theoretical and operational models,” in Measuring Environment Across the Life Span: Emerging Methods and Concepts , eds S. L. Friedman and T. D. Wachs (American Psychological Association), 3–28. 10.1037/10317-001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. (2005). Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development . New York: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U., Ceci S. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological model . Psychol. Rev. 101 , 568–586. 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U., Morris P. A. (1998). “The bioecological model of human development,” in Handbook of Child Psychology , ed. R. M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons; ), 993–1027. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U., Morris P. A. (2006). “The bioecological model of human development,” in Handbook of Child Psychology , ed. R. M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.), 793–828. 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell R. (2011). The impact of study abroad on Japanese language learners' social networks . New Voices 5 , 25–63. 10.21159/nv.05.02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chkaif B., Sallam M. H., Xu M. H., Thamik H. (2022). African students' mobility to China: an ecological systematic perspective . Trames-J. Human. Soc. Sci. 26 , 185–206. 10.3176/tr.2022.2.05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman J. A. (2013). “Researching whole people and whole lives” , in Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad , ed. C. Kinginger (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 17–44. 10.1075/lllt.37.02col [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conceição S. C. O., Mina L., Southern T. (2021). Brazilian students studying in the United States: perceptions of their lived experiences 6 months after returning home . J. Transfor. Educ. 19 , 127–146. 10.1177/1541344620944640 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles . Res. Hum. Dev . 4 , 203–217. 10.1080/15427600701663023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drillien C. M. (1964). Growth and Development of the Prematurely Born Infant . E. & S. Livingston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer M. (2004). More is better: the impact of study abroad program duration . J. Study Abroad 10 , 151–163. 10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot D. L., Baumfield V., Reid K. (2016a). Searching for 'a third space': a creative pathway towards international PhD students' academic acculturation . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 35 , 1180–1195. 10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot D. L., Kobayashi S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teach. High. Educ. 24 , 911–929. 10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot D. L., Reid K., Baumfield V. (2016b). Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and challenges: an enquiry into international students' academic acculturation . Stud. High. Educ. 41 , 2198–2217. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1029903 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emery A., von Spiegel J., Sayer R., Khandaker N., Anderman L. (2020). Parent perspectives on schooling experiences of internationally adopted youth with disabilities . Learn. Disabil. Multidisc. J. 25 , 1–15. 10.18666/LDMJ-2020-V25-I2-10473 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Isabelli-García C. (2006). “Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: implications for second language acquisition,” in Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts , eds M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters), 231–258. 10.21832/9781853598531-013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson J. (2009). Intercultural learning on short-term sojourns . Intercult. Educ . 20 , 59–71. 10.1080/14675980903370870 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaeger E. L. (2017). Negotiating complexity: a bioecological systems perspective on literacy development . Hum. Dev. 59 , 163–187. 10.1159/000448743 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jessup-Anger J. E., Aragones A. (2013). Students' peer interactions within a cohort and in host countries during a short-term study abroad . J. Student Affairs Res. Pract. 50 , 21–36. 10.1515/jsarp-2013-0002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang Q. O., Song X., Yue C., Wang K., Sun H., Zhang Z., et al.. (2023). Internationalization of medical education in China: an investigation of medical graduates' global competence and its influencing factors . Med. Teach . 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2259066 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: toward an alternative model of accountability in education . Complicity 5 , 1–10. 10.29173/cmplct8777 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight S. M., Schmidt-Rinehart B. D. (2002). Enhancing the homestay: study abroad from the host family's perspective . Foreign Lang. Ann . 35 , 190–201. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb03154.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lafford B., Collentine J. (2006). “The effects of study abroad and classroom contexts on the acquisition of Spanish as a second language: From research to application,” in Spanish Second Language Acquisition: From Research Findings to Teaching Applications , eds B. Lafford and R. Salaberry (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), 103–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li X., Que H. (2016). Integration and career challenges of newcomer youth in newfoundland in Canada . FIRE 2 , 44–62. 10.18275/fire201502031082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu D., Xu Y. W., Zhao T. T., Che S. Q. (2022). Academic career development of Chinese returnees with overseas Ph.D. degrees: A bioecological development perspective . Front. Psychol. 13 , 859240. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859240 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnan S., Lafford B. (2012). “Learning through immersion during study abroad,” in The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 525–540. 10.4324/9780203808184-44 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marangell S. (2023). Exploring students' experiences of an internationalized university through a person-in-context lens . J. Compar. Int. High. Educ. 15 , 134–165. 10.32674/jcihe.v15i2.4133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McBrien J. L. (2011). The importance of context: Vietnamese, Somali, and Iranian refugee mothers discuss their resettled lives and involvement in their children's schools . Compare-A J. Compar. Int. Educ. 41 , 75–90. 10.1080/03057925.2010.523168 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMeekin A. (2006). “Negotiation in a Japanese study abroad setting,” in Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts , eds M. A. DuFon and E. Churchill (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters), 177–202. 10.21832/9781853598531-011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merchant B., Johansson O., Ärlestig H. (2020). Welcome and välkommen: school administrators in the U.S. and Sweden responds to unexpected numbers of refugees in their rural communities . Int. J. Leader. Educ. 23 , 24–39. 10.1080/13603124.2019.1629630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merçon-Vargas E. A., Lima R. F. F., Rosa E. M., Tudge J. (2020). Processing proximal processes: what Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn't mean, and what he should have meant . J. Family Theory Rev. 12 , 321–334. 10.1111/jftr.12373 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulisa F. (2019). Application of bioecological systems theory to higher education: best evidence review . J. Pedagog. Soc. Psychol . 1 , 104–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Navarro J. L., Stephens C., Rodrigues B. C., Walker I. A., Cook O., O'Toole L., et al.. (2022). Bored of the rings: methodological and analytic approaches to operationalizing Bronfenbrenner's PPCT model in research practice . J. Family Theory Rev. 14 , 233–253. 10.1111/jftr.12459 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngo N. H. H., Cherrington S., Crabbe D. (2022a). An integrated framework of professional development for Vietnamese lecturers of English as a foreign language . RELC J . 1–16. 10.1177/00336882221085783 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngo N. H. H., Cherrington S., Crabbe D. (2022b). Contextual influences on the professional development experiences of lecturers in English as a foreign language at a Vietnamese university . Profess. Dev. Educ. 49 , 1197–1213. 10.1080/19415257.2022.2155983 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Toole L., Hayes N., Mhathúna M. M. (2014). A bio-ecological perspective on educational transition . Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci . 140 , 121–127. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.396 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al.. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ 88 , 105906. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar A. (2016). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context: findings and research directions . Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J . 18 , 83–94. 10.14483/calj.v18n2.9480 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter R., Porter N. (2020). Japanese college students' study abroad decisions: perspectives of Japanese study abroad administrators . Int. Educ. J.-Compar. Perspect. 19 , 54–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rokita-Jaśkow J., Wolanin A., Król-Gierat W., Nosidlak K. (2023). Bridging the 'dual lives': school socialization of young bi/multilinguals in the eyes of EFL teachers . Int. J. Bilingual Educ. Biling. 26 , 395–410. 10.1080/13670050.2022.2114788 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa E. M., Tudge J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development: its evolution from ecology to bioecology . J. Family Theory Rev. 5 , 243–258. 10.1111/jftr.12022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt-Rinehart B., Knight S. (2004). The homestay component of study abroad: Three perspectives . Foreign Lang. Ann . 37 , 254–262. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02198.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shelton L. G. (2019). The Bronfenbrenner Primer: A Guide to Develecology. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315136066 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Small S., Luster T. (1990). “Youth at risk for parenthood,” in Paper presented at the Creating Caring Communities Conference (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Suárez-Orozco C., Bang H. J., Onaga M. (2010). Contributions to variations in academic trajectories amongst recent immigrant youth . Int. J. Behav. Dev. 34 , 500–510. 10.1177/0165025409360304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor G., Ali N. (2017). Learning and living overseas: exploring factors that influence meaningful learning and assimilation: how international students adjust to studying in the UK from a socio-cultural perspective . Educ. Sci . 7 :35. 10.3390/educsci7010035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong P., An I. S., Zhou Y. (2022). Developmental ecosystems of study abroad in a turbulent time: an Australian-Chinese's experience in multilingual Hong Kong . J. Multil. Multicult. Dev . 43 , 1–17. 10.1080/01434632.2022.2101654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trevor-Roper S. (2021). International academic affiliations: destination or journey? An Oman-based study of policy, practice and potential . J. Stud. Int. Educ. 27 , 240–256. 10.1177/10283153211047936 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tudge J. R. H. (2016). Implicit versus explicit ways of using Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory . Hum. Dev. 59 , 195–199. 10.1159/000449453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tudge J. R. H., Merçon -Vargas E. A., Liang Y., Payir A. (2017). “The importance of Urie Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory for early childhood education,” in Theories of Early Childhood Education: Developmental, Behaviorist, and Critical , eds L. E. Cohen and S. Waite-Stupiansky (Routledge). 10.4324/9781315641560 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tudge J. R. H., Mokrova I., Hatfield B. E., Karnik R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development . J. Family Theory Rev. 1 , 198–210. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tudge J. R. H., Payir A., Merçon-Vargas E., Cao H., Liang Y., Li J., O'Brien L. (2016). Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development . J. Family Theory Rev. 8 , 427–445. 10.1111/jftr.12165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ushioda E. (2009). “A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity,” in Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self , eds Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (Bristol: Multilingual Matters), 215–228. 10.21832/9781847691293-012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vardanyan S., Ernest J. M., Perkins F. (2018). Cultural influence and language acquisition of a syrian immigrant girl in alabama . Int. J. Early Childh. Educ. Care 7 , 42–51. 10.37134/saecj.vol7.5.2018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volet S. (2001). “Understanding learning and motivation in context: a multi-dimensional and multi-level cognitive-situative perspective,” in Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications , eds. S. Volet and S. Järvelä (Pergamon), 57–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisner T. S. (2008). The Urie Bronfenbrenner Top 19: Looking back at his bioecological perspective . Mind, Culture, Activity 15 , 258–262. 10.1080/10749030802186785 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winer N., Nuttman-Shwartz O., Huss E. (2021). “A Home of My Own”: the experience of children of international migrants . Clin. Soc. Work J. 49 , 325–335. 10.1007/s10615-021-00811-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu X., Sit H., Chen S. (2021). International education through a bioecological development lens - Acase study of Chinese doctoral students in Australia . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 40 , 1342–1357. 10.1080/07294360.2020.1811646 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu X., Tran L. T. (2022). A qualitative investigation into Chinese International doctoral students' navigation of a disrupted study trajectory during COVID-19 . J. Stud. Int. Educ. 26 , 553–571. 10.1177/10283153211042092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yrttiaho S., Bruwer B., Zar H. J., Donald K. A., Malcolm-Smith S., Ginton L., et al.. (2021). Pupillary and attentional responses to infant facial expressions in mothers across socioeconomic variations . Child Dev. 92 , e236–e251. 10.1111/cdev.13503 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu Y., Cheng M., Xu Y. (2021). Understanding international postgraduate students' educational mobility to China: an ecological systematic perspective . High. Educ. Res. Dev . 41 , 2137–2153. 10.1080/07294360.2021.1973383 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y. L. (2018). Using Bronfenbrenner's ecological approach to understand academic advising with international community college students . J. Int. Stud. 8 , 1764–1782. 10.32674/jis.v8i4.230 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 31, 2000, review article, ecological resilience—in theory and application.

• Lance H. Gunderson 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Dept. of Environmental Studies, Emory University, Atlanta, 30322; Georgia e-mail: [email protected]
• Vol. 31:425-439 (Volume publication date November 2000) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425
• © Annual Reviews

In 1973, C. S. Holling introduced the word resilience into the ecological literature as a way of helping to understand the non-linear dynamics observed in ecosystems. Ecological resilience was defined as the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem could withstand without changing self-organized processes and structures (defined as alternative stable states). Other authors consider resilience as a return time to a stable state following a perturbation. A new term, adaptive capacity, is introduced to describe the processes that modify ecological resilience. Two definitions recognize the presence of multiple stable states (or stability domains), and hence resilience is the property that mediates transition among these states. Transitions among stable states have been described for many ecosystems, including semi-arid rangelands, lakes, coral reefs, and forests. In these systems, ecological resilience is maintained by keystone structuring processes across a number of scales, sources of renewal and reformation, and functional biodiversity. In practice, maintaining a capacity for renewal in a dynamic environment provides an ecological buffer that protects the system from the failure of management actions that are taken based upon incomplete understanding, and it allows managers to affordably learn and change.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, resilience and stability of ecological systems, ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change, effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity, species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time, stable isotopes in ecosystem studies, phylogenies and community ecology, species richness of parasite assemblages: evolution and patterns, the population biology of invasive species, landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems.

Publication Date: 01 Nov 2000

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Perspectives in Ecological Theory

• Edited by: Jonathan Roughgarden , Robert M May and Simon A. Levin
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Copyright year: 1989
• Edition: Course Book
• Audience: Professional and scholarly;College/higher education;
• Main content: 404
• Keywords: Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Organism ; Predation ; Prediction ; Population dynamics ; Theoretical ecology ; Ecological study ; Ecological economics ; Behavioral ecology ; Ecological genetics ; Ecological assessment ; Ecosystem model ; Energy flow (ecology) ; Biomass (ecology) ; Conservation biology ; Ecological energetics ; Population ecology ; Ecophysiology ; Human ecology ; Ecological succession ; Environmental protection ; Pathogen ; Physiology ; Nutrient ; Population genetics ; Ecological analysis ; Pesticide application ; Lotka–Volterra equations ; Ecological Society of America ; Food web ; Phytoplankton ; Keystone species ; Environmental factor ; Optimal foraging theory ; Food chain ; Biological interaction ; Model organism ; Environmental resource management ; Spatial scale ; Macroparasite ; Speciation ; Landscape ecology ; Coevolution ; Phenomenological model ; Forest dynamics ; Environmental gradient ; Evolution ; Biological pest control ; Biodiversity ; Population control ; Ecosystem services ; Foraging ; Species–area curve ; Biogeography ; Probability ; Mutation–selection balance ; Biophysics ; Phenotype ; Observational study ; Epidemiology ; Macroevolution ; Ecological efficiency ; Habitat fragmentation ; Fishery ; Microecology ; Herbivore ; Behavioural genetics ; Field experiment ; Taxon ; Theory ; Biogeochemical cycle ; Welfare economics ; Evolutionary dynamics ; Character displacement ; Taxonomy (biology) ; Genetic drift ; Evolutionary biology ; Renewable resource ; Marine Resource Economics ; Abiotic component ; Calculation ; Microparasite ; Population process ; Ethology ; Microbiology ; Biologist ; Life history theory ; On the Origin of Species ; Population cycle ; Intertidal ecology ; Ecotone ; Biosphere ; Parasitoid ; Natural selection ; Gene–environment interaction ; Biological oceanography ; Environmental disaster ; Wildlife management ; Marginal value theorem
• Published: July 14, 2014
• ISBN: 9781400860180

A methodological guide for applying the social-ecological system (SES) framework: a review of quantitative approaches

• Stefan Partelow Stefan Partelow Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany; Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany

> × Details

The following is the established format for referencing this article:

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13493-270439

• Introduction
• Framework and Review Methodology
• Responses to This Article
• Acknowledgments
• Data Availability
• Literature Cited

Article Metrics

Copyright and permissions, introduction.

The social-ecological systems framework (SESF) remains one of the most highly cited and empirically applied conceptual frameworks for diagnosing social-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2007, 2009, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Notably, the SESF does not have a methodological guide or a standardized set of procedures to empirically apply it. This is to some extent by design, to allow flexibility in how methods are adapted to diverse contexts (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). However, this has led to highly heterogeneous applications and challenges in designing a coherent set of data collection and analysis methods across cases.

A main challenge is that methodology is a general term, which actually refers to a set of stepwise specific procedures which can include study design, conceptualization of variables and indictors for data collection, empirical or secondary data collection, data processing and cleaning, data analysis, as well as data visualization, communication, and sharing. Although the SESF provides a uniform set of variables, it does not indicate any of the other necessary steps for a robust scientific study. Applying the SESF is not a method itself, but it is arguably a theory-derived conceptual guide for focusing the methods a researcher does choose on a set of variables that have previous empirical support in shaping commons, institutional development and change, and/or collective action outcome. Thus, scholars are forced to either mirror previous studies or develop their own procedures, leaving heterogeneous applications that enable contextually tailored approaches but hinder comparability across studies.

The focus of this study is to explicitly synthesize the methods applied in SESF studies by systematically reviewing published quantitative applications of the SESF and to develop a methodological guide for the framework’s continued application while highlighting the challenges in current literature. A guide is useful so that scholars can map their methodological choices more transparently, sparking reflections for their own study designs and better enabling the systematic communication of study methodological decisions to others. To apply the SES framework, a series of methodological steps are needed. These steps have been referred to by Partelow (2018) as methodological gaps, because if they are not explicitly defined by authors, they can lead to a lack of transparency for future comparability and interpretability by other scholars. The methodological gaps include: the (1) variable definition gap, (2) variable to indicator gap, (3) the measurement gap, (4) the data transformation gap.

Focusing on methodologies is important for two reasons. First, synthesis research to build theoretical insights across SES applications has been a challenge because the full spectrum of methodological designs and concept definitions are often not fully published or are simply too heterogeneous for making contextually meaningful comparisons (Thiel et al. 2015, Partelow 2018, Cumming et al. 2020, Cox et al. 2021). For example, Villamayor-Tomas et al. (2020) found that the majority of reviewed models from 30 SESF studies were lacking detail regarding what methods or approaches were used to identify the relationships between variables that the authors were presenting. Second, the SESF itself does not provide any explanation of the factors or causal relationships that are shaping the observed SES problem or phenomena. The framework only provides a common vocabulary and a diagnostic conceptual organization of 1st-tier component interactions, not a procedure regarding how or which methods should be applied with the SESF to investigate these factors.

The methodological guide proposed from this review is applicable, in our view, to all future applications of the framework, both quantitative and qualitative. Nonetheless, quantitative methods were used as the basis for the review because they typically follow systematic procedures for data collection and analysis through the discipline of statistics, which in the data collection phase, translates empirical observations into comparable sets of numbers that can be analyzed with standardized analytical techniques. Specifically defined indicators and variables are needed for quantification along with specific steps to appropriately transform and analyze data, in contrast to qualitative studies, in which reproducibility and generalizable measurement may not be possible or is not the goal of the research. Reproducible criteria for how variables are measured in qualitative studies is by nature more difficult because a primary objective in many qualitative contexts is the rich analysis of data, contexts, and processes not easily reduced to individual variables (Queirós et al. 2017) and often focused on broader knowledge transferability than specific data comparability (Guba 1981).

Previous studies have outlined sets of questions or procedures for applying the framework more specifically, such as for conceptualizing and defining the case SES and action situation (Hinkel et al. 2014, 2015, Partelow 2016). However, there is no systematic or procedural guide with a focus on outlining different methodological strategies and choices. As such, this review aims to make two major contributions. First, to review current applications of the SESF to compile a multi-step guide of methodological steps for applying the SESF framework. Second, to use these results as a base for constructively analyzing current trends, inconsistencies, and challenges in applying the framework to date and to highlight needed methodological advancements and paths forward in SESF research. Through a systematic review of SESF methodologies, we explored the methodological heterogeneity and gaps across the literature and discuss how this heterogeneity can lead to ambiguity for synthesis work. Combined with feedback from a survey regarding ongoing SESF challenges from 22 co-authors of publications included in this review, we identified methodological strategies at each step of study design, data collection, and analysis and then we provide a synthetic methodological guide to inform future applications, while also positing critical reflections on the limitations of current approaches.

FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW METHODOLOGY

Social-ecological systems framework.

The SESF was developed to conduct institutional analyses on natural resource systems and diagnose related collective action challenges. The core of the framework provides a decomposable list of variables situated around an “ action situation ” in which actors make decisions and actions based on the available information within their positions, which enables researchers to structure diagnostic inquiry and compare findings. Although most empirical applications of the SESF have established some theoretical ties to the study of the commons and collective action (Partelow 2018), the SESF was conceived and gained traction as a useful tool for the broader characterization and analysis of SES sustainability (Ostrom 2009) and as a “ theory-neutral ” framework that can be used with other theories or to build new theories (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014, Cox et al. 2016). For a more complete history of the SESF and its connection to the institutional analysis and design (IAD) framework, see its foundational publications (Ostrom, 2007, 2009, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) as well as previous syntheses and reviews (Thiel et al. 2015, Partelow 2018, 2019).

The SESF is divided into several 1st-tier components representing social and ecological as well as external factors and system interactions and outcomes, each divided into multiple 2nd-tier variables (Ostrom 2009; Table 1). By breaking down an SES into a set of decomposable, nested, and generalizable concepts, the SESF aims to achieve a dual purpose, (1) facilitating an understanding of the specific and contextual factors influencing SES outcomes at a fine local scale and (2) also sharing a common general vocabulary of variables to facilitate the identification of commonalities across cases to build policy recommendations and theory at varying levels of generalizability (Basurto and Ostrom 2009, Ostrom and Cox 2010).

Although the existing literature suggests that the SESF is being successfully applied as a contextually adaptable tool for local SES case analysis, synthetic analysis remains a critical challenge, and the goal of comparability across studies has arguably not been fully realized (Partelow 2018). Scholars applying the SESF have been innovative and exploratory in how their data are collected, analyzed, and reused, leading to methodological pluralism, heterogeneity, and often ambiguity in how the SESF is or should be applied, such as the lack of clarity in how case-relevant variables should be selected and measured (Partelow 2018), as well as difficulties with ambiguous or abstract variable definitions (Hinkel et al. 2014, Thiel et al. 2015). Existing SES and commons database synthesis efforts exist but are made more difficult by the broad range of methodological approaches and inconsistencies with how the framework is applied and variables measured (Cox et al. 2020, 2021). Recent synthesis work of the SESF has noted challenges including both the lack and heterogeneity of information on variable relationships and causal inferences across publications, limiting analysis to only the co-occurrence of variables across SESF studies (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020). Social-ecological systems framework applications are taking different approaches to selecting, justifying, measuring, and analyzing SESF variables and lack precision in concepts and measurements (Cumming et al. 2020). We therefore identify methodological inconsistencies in applying the SESF as one major ongoing hurdle to comparable and synthetic SES research, and thus the primary focus of our review.

This study applied systematic review methods to peer-reviewed literature collected from SCOPUS, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar between August to September 2020 (with a follow-up search in January 2021) to identify any literature applying the SESF with some degree of quantitative data analysis (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.1). The initial SCOPUS and Web of Science title/abstract search used search terms (TITLE-ABSTRACT ("social-ecological system* framework" OR “ social ecological system* framework ” ) OR "SES framework") OR TITLE-ABSTRACT ("social-ecological system*" AND "framework" AND Ostrom")) OR TITLE-ABSTRACT ("social-ecological system*" AND "SESF")) and a follow-up search with Google Scholar to identify any additional publications, which after removing duplicates resulted in an initial set of 330 peer-reviewed publications. Because a key focus of this review is on the heterogeneity of explicit methodological procedures and variable measurements affecting generalizability, comparability, and reproducibility of results, we chose to focus on completely or mixed-methods quantitative applications of the SESF, which are more likely to face limitations in these regards. These criteria included all publications that applied the SESF and analyzed any amount of quantitative raw or transformed data. Publications with any ambiguities with regard to these criteria were discussed between co-authors to reach consensus on inclusion in the review. A title/abstract scan removed all publications not applying the SESF, followed by a full-text review to identify those applying a quantitative analysis, which identified 46 publications. A follow-up search in January 2021 identified 4 additional publications and 1 additional publication was identified during peer-review, resulting in a total of 51 publications for final review. Each article was evaluated using a standardized coding form that was pre-tested by the authors for consistency. The review followed two guiding questions: (1) How is the SESF being applied with quantitative/mixed-methods quantitative approaches (sectors, research aims, and analytical methods)? (2) How are the 2nd-tier SESF variables being applied (variable selection criteria, data collection, measurable indicator selection criteria)?

To answer these questions, we coded the following data from each publication: purpose for applying the SESF, focal SES analyzed, data analysis methods, challenges in applying the SESF, 2nd-tier variable selection and inclusion criteria, measurable indicator selection, data collection methods, and data type. We make an important distinction between “ variables, ” or the generally defined 2nd-tier concepts of the SESF, and “ indicators ” referring to how the variables are actually measured. Any ambiguities during the coding and evaluation process were flagged and discussed between co-authors to reach consensus. Initial coding was completed in February 2021. To gather more explicit reflections from researchers regarding SESF methodological challenges, critiques, and reflections, a researcher survey was also conducted. The survey questionnaire was distributed to all corresponding authors of the reviewed publications starting in February 2021 and consisted of Likert scale and full-text response questions about their experiences with the SESF. The full list of reviewed publications can be found in Appendix 2, 2nd-tier SESF variable indicators from reviewed publications in Appendix 3, and the evaluation forms, procedure, and author survey questionnaire in Appendix 4. The guide steps were developed based on gaps and trends in the SESF literature, in particular the previously noted methodological gaps in the SESF (Partelow 2018) and were further iterated based on the results of the review, researcher survey, experiences in planning our own research with the SESF, and on-going discussions between novice and experienced SESF researchers in our working group.

A multi-step methodological guide for applying the social-ecological systems (SES) framework

Our findings indicate that researchers applying the SESF make a series of methodological choices that can be organized into a multi-step guide that includes all the aggregated choice options across studies at each step. We present this as a 10-step methodological guide and decision tree (Fig. 1). The steps are arranged in what we identified as a generally logical order, but the specific order of operations is likely to vary based on specific research aims. The branches within the decision tree for each numbered step are not all-encompassing, but instead represent, for each step, the categories that were identified and coded in the reviewed SESF publications, with a handful of potential additional categories identified by the authors. A total of 22 complete responses to the SESF researcher survey were received from co-authors of the 51 reviewed publications. Likert-scale survey responses are presented in Figure 2, and Appendix 1 (Table A1.1) summarizes categories of responses to the short answer survey questions.

(1) What is the primary purpose for applying the SESF?

The SESF is generally positioned as a tool to guide diagnostic SES inquiry, but how it is actually applied varies substantially. One application may develop theoretically derived hypotheses on how 2nd-tier variables are linked to collective action and self-organization in a case (e.g., Klümper and Theesfeld 2017, Su et al. 2020). Others might take an inductive approach, using the SESF to code and compare local perceptions of the SES (e.g., Ziegler et al. 2019, Partelow et al. 2021), or use the SESF basis to develop a model of individual actor behavior in an SES (e.g., Cenek and Franklin 2017, Lindkvist et al. 2017).

Most respondents to the researcher survey stated that it was clear how to apply the SESF to their research, how to use the SESF to support theory building and testing, and how to identify relevant variables for a given case. The SESF was typically chosen by respondents because of its clear and coherent organizational structure and comprehensive coverage of a wide range of social and ecological dimensions, however, nearly a third (n = 7) of respondents chose the SESF at least in part due to its origins in the study of the commons and collective action theory. In our synthetic review, we broadly categorized the purpose for applying the framework as extracted from introduction and methods sections of reviewed publications. Although most studies incorporate multiple objectives, the majority of reviewed publications applied the framework with the primary aim of predicting explanatory social-ecological drivers of (typically a small number of) measured dependent variables representing SES outcomes (e.g., Fujitani et al. 2020, Okumu and Muchapondwa 2020; n = 31). The remaining publications were divided between characterization of SESs through descriptive or diagnostic measurements of the important variables (e.g., Leslie et al. 2015, Rocha et al. 2020; n = 10), testing or projecting potential future SES scenarios through simulations or models of system behavior (e.g., Baur and Binder 2015, Cenek and Franklin 2017; n = 5), or social learning aimed at understanding or better integrating local SES user knowledge and perspectives (e.g., Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015, Oviedo and Bursztyn 2016; n = 5). This broader purpose or goal in applying the SESF informs a wide heterogeneity of methodological decisions and considerations leading to the final study outcome.

(2) Is inter- or transdisciplinary research needed to appropriately conduct the study?

Research with the SESF often requires the integration of concepts and data from a wide array of disciplines. Researchers must consider whether adequately analyzing, describing, or diagnosing an SES may require the integration of diverse knowledge types and formats. This integration can take place across multiple dimensions, levels, and scales (Guerrero et al. 2018). Common criticisms of the SESF, for instance, note that the framework itself developed from disciplinary roots in the social sciences, and it is lacking an equivalent depth of consideration of ecological processes and theories (Epstein et al. 2013, Vogt et al. 2015). Our review found that ecological variables are underrepresented compared to social variables in SESF studies (Table 2), and SESF researchers are also more likely to rely on secondary data for ecological variables than for social variables (Fig. 3).

Integration of different scientific disciplinary expertise (interdisciplinary; Hicks et al. 2010, Bennett et al. 2016) or of scientific and non-scientific expertise (transdisciplinary; Caniglia et al. 2021, Lam et al. 2021) can influence how and to what extent all social and biophysical components and dynamics of the SES are investigated, as well as for whom the study outcomes are relevant and meaningful (Guerrero et al. 2018). Many reviewed publications included stakeholders in the research through household surveys or interviews, but only 12 studies were identified that actually integrated stakeholders into the study co-design process, either by influencing the research questions or objectives, or by playing a direct role in the selection and evaluation of relevant SESF variables. Including relevant non-scientific stakeholders at multiple stages in the research can increase knowledge exchange and research influence (Reyers et al. 2015) and the SESF has been demonstrated as a tool to enhance communication between actors in SES governance (Gurney et al. 2019, Partelow et al. 2019). Reflecting on the appropriate type and level of integration should be an important early methodological consideration in SESF research design.

(3) What is the focal SES(s) of analysis and factors determining its boundaries?

Defining the SES and its boundaries is essential for determining how the individual variables are analyzed in relation to what the internal and external influences on those variables are. The focal sector will also determine the degree to which the analysis could be compared to another study or the practical implications of the findings. Most studies are still applying the SESF to classic common pool resource problems (van Laerhoven et al. 2020) in sectors such as forestry and fisheries (Appendix 1, Table A1.2), providing a larger library of sector-specific comparable studies and variables for authors studying these SESs to reference in designing their own research. The SESF is place-based in design, and researchers should also consider what is within the study system and what is external to its context, and this justification should be established based on the research objectives. For example, SESs often have fuzzy social and ecological boundaries that are not easily delineated and often do not align with each other, and how a researcher bounds the system in their study can have implications for the study findings. The focal SESs in the reviewed literature were described or analyzed with boundaries based on social (n = 29), ecological (n = 8), or mixed or fuzzy factors (n = 12; Appendix 1, Table A1.2). A study might have increased clarity or relevance to policymakers by bounding their analysis by administrative borders but fail to adequately capture important ecological processes not conforming to these social boundaries. We have included defining scope and SES boundary clarification as a key step in our guide because of its methodological implications for the rest of the study, but direct researchers to an existing detailed procedure for conceptualizing and defining the focal SES and institutional action situation of analysis (Hinkel et al. 2015).

(4) What are the primary unit(s) of analysis, number of units, and scales of analysis?

Who or what does the study hope to specifically inform? What is the best spatial fit for the SES phenomena being studied? Although most SESF studies are situated within the case context of one or more SESs, actual units of analysis might range from individual aquaculture ponds (Partelow et al. 2018) to residential neighborhoods (Schmitt-Harsh and Mincey 2020) to administrative provinces (Dressel et al. 2018). The selection of unit of analysis, including number of units compared and spatial and temporal levels of analysis, all impact the granularity and types of generalizations that can be made by the study findings and may also reflect certain practical considerations in terms of data collection. We coded units of analysis at the individual (e.g., individual survey respondent), local (e.g., community), or regional (e.g., geographic region or administrative level encompassing multiple communities or governance units) spatial level. Local and individual units were the most common, followed by regional units ranging from political districts (Dressel et al. 2018, Rocha et al. 2020) to large social-ecological regions (Leslie et al. 2015; Table 3). We categorized studies comparing 30 or more units as large-N, following the central limit theorem (with some studies comparing multiple units of analysis). Large-N comparisons of individual or local units were the most common in the reviewed literature, with only two large-N studies comparing regional units. Additionally, although we identified eight publications analyzing cases across multiple countries, only three cross-national studies collected empirical data (including two studies from the same project: Aaron MacNeil and Cinner 2013; Cinner et al. 2012), with the rest reliant entirely on existing secondary data sources. Although our review focused primarily on coding the number and spatial level of units of analysis, we also emphasize the importance of a wide range of critical scales or dimensions for SES analysis. See Glaser and Glaeser 2014 for further reflections on these dimensions.

(5) Which 2nd-tier SESF variables are being examined and what are the inclusion or exclusion criteria?

No empirical studies examine all of the 2nd-tier variables in the framework. Clearly communicating which 2nd-tier variables were selected, and why or why not, improves understandability and comparability. Ambiguities regarding interpreting, selecting, and defining relevant 2nd-tier variables for a given case were the most frequently reported negative aspect of applying the SESF in our survey. Respondents noted the subjectivity in how variables can be defined, allowing for great flexibility but diminishing comparability. Challenges also exist with interpreting whether high or low “ states ” of a variable may lead to favorable or unfavorable outcomes (e.g., variable hypotheses). Of the 51 reviewed publications, 26 provided clear documentation of all 2nd-tier variables being examined (Fig. 4). The remaining 25 publications were excluded from 2nd-tier variable and indicator analysis because they were either opting not to apply the 2nd-tier variables or lacked clarity regarding which (if any) 2nd-tier variables were being examined. For example, some studies were merging parts of the SESF with other conceptual frameworks, and others provided only a list of indicators categorized by the 1st-tier components, without conclusive indication of which (if any) 2nd-tier variables they aligned with. In some studies, there was a purposive decision to not to apply the 2nd-tier variables by study authors, such as in modeling approaches focused on individual unit behavior within the SES rather than broader SES components. However, in many studies the reasoning was unclear. Some of the 25 excluded publications included alternative 2nd-tier variable definitions or numbering schemes without specifying if these alterations were intended to be interpreted as unmodified, modified, or entirely new 2nd-tier variables (Roquetti et al. 2017, Okumu and Muchapondwa 2020). Modifications to the framework, including adding variables, should be justified while noting the theoretical inclusion criteria that the included variables were based on (Frey and Cox 2015, Partelow 2018). Because journal word counts are often a limiting factor, authors might consider including a clearly formatted 2nd-tier variable appendix as supplementary material (Leslie et al. 2015, Foster and Hope 2016, Dressel et al. 2018, Osuka et al. 2020).

Each study selects this subset of variables based on criteria such as expected relevance to the study. Was a variable excluded because it was not empirically meaningful for the case, because it was potentially relevant but not easily empirically measurable, or because it was not in the authors’ interest to examine it? Was a variable included because the authors have formulated a clear hypothesis for its case relevance or because an abundance of secondary data are readily available to measure it? In the reviewed publications, existing literature and theory was the most common reported criteria, followed by local SES actor expert knowledge, as well as data availability and scarcity influencing variable selection (Table 2). Most studies reported only a general list of inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., “ our variables were selected based on literature review and expert knowledge ” ), rather than specific criteria for every included variable in either the main text or supplementary material. Additionally, in five studies we could find no basis for why the selected variables were chosen. Clearly formulated hypotheses for why each included variable was relevant to a case were only identified in eight studies (Leslie et al. 2015, Foster and Hope 2016, Dressel et al. 2018, Partelow et al. 2018, Haider et al. 2019, Rana and Miller 2019a, Osuka et al. 2020, Rocha et al. 2020). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are not always clear-cut and might be based on multiple theoretical, methodological, or logistical aspects. Particularly for quantitative approaches, 2nd-tier variable inclusion and exclusion is likely to also be influenced by statistical factors. In many cases, adding additional variables may need to be weighed against the potential loss of statistical power that this may entail. Similarly, some otherwise relevant variables might be omitted from a study because preliminary data exploration shows high multi-collinearity in their measurements (e.g., Gurney et al. 2016). Documenting not only inclusion criteria but also exclusion criteria should be strongly considered by authors, particularly when 2nd-tier variables may have been omitted for reasons beyond solely a lack of case relevance.

(6) How are selected 2nd-tier variables being measured?

Can the variable be directly measured empirically, given the study design and data collection method? Most of the 2nd-tier variables are concepts and are not directly measurable (at least quantitatively) without specifying one or multiple indicators to represent the concept empirically or to specify its empirical meaning, thus these indicators often form the true unit of comparison in many SESF studies. Even if studies examine the same 2nd-tier variable, they likely select different indicators to specify and measure them. In such cases, what indicators are selected, how many, and why should be considered. Almost half (n = 10) of survey respondents disagreed that it was clear how to identify relevant measurable indicators, and respondents also noted subjectivity and inconsistencies regarding where a given indicator might be coded into the SESF. Our findings suggest heterogeneous and context-dependent indicator selection decisions, with most publications collecting indicators from a wide range of sources and data types. Examples of this indicator diversity for variables RS5 and A2 are shown in Table 4. Study-specific interpretations of 2nd-tier variables and related choice of measurable indicators were highly varied, and reviewed publications were inconsistent in documenting which measurable indicators were applied. Because existing SESF case studies are likely to be an important resource and reference point when identifying appropriate measurable indicators, specificity in documentation of this step when publishing SESF research is critical to improve interpretability and comparability of findings. A selection of all 2nd-tier variable indicators that could be clearly identified in our synthesis can be found in Appendix 3.

(7) What data collection methods are used for the selected indicators?

Social-ecological systems framework studies are likely to rely on a range of different data collection methods and both primary and secondary sources in collecting data for a heterogeneous range of variables in often data-scarce contexts, and researchers should carefully consider the implications for their study design and analysis. Primary data collection ensures complete researcher control over how variables and indicators are measured but is often not feasible across a wide and mixed range of variables. Secondary data collection is often more feasible but may have issues of ambiguity regarding the data quality and clarity of data collection and measurement. Almost all primary data are being collected via social science methods such as questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups (Table 5). Across the 26 studies with clearly articulated 2nd-tier variable selections, primary ecological or biophysical survey data were collected to measure only 9 indicators. Overall, primary data collection is more common than reliance on secondary data. Comparing data collection methods by 1st-tier SESF components suggests that researchers using the SESF are collecting a higher proportion of their social variable data from primary sources compared to their ecological variable data (Fig. 3). However, this trend is highly heterogeneous at the 2nd-tier level (Fig. 4). Thirteen studies relied only on primary data, 20 studies on only secondary data, and 15 studies collected data from a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Our findings indicate that data collection methods across the reviewed literature are wide-ranging with most individual studies applying multiple data collection methods and mixed data types.

(8) What type of data is measured for the selected indicators?

Heterogeneity in data sources and collection methods in SESF studies is likely to result in a range of data types or formats. Schmitt-Harsh and Mincey 2020, for example, combined continuous quantitative indicators calculated from GIS data with ordinal indicators from a multiple-choice survey and binary presence/absence classifications of residential properties. Measuring indicators with a range of mixed data types (e.g., continuous, ordinal, categorical) might facilitate the inclusion of more SESF variables but limits the types of statistical analyses available or requires extensive data processing and transformation. Documentation regarding which indicators were data transformed for analysis was not consistent enough across publications to evaluate in full, however min-max normalization was the most frequent transformation identified. The type or format of the collected data can also add a further layer of abstraction to interpreting or comparing SESF variables in a given study and should be made transparent. For example, two studies seemingly defining the same indicator, e.g. "Kilograms of fish catch," may measure it in different ways, such as from a numeric value (e.g., 37 kg) to a qualitative ordinal scale (e.g., below average, average, above average). These differences in measurement may lead to notable differences in interpretation.

(9) What data analysis methods are being applied?

Data analysis methods broadly encompass the techniques for collection and analysis of data to draw insights. Because the SESF is to an extent only a selection of potentially relevant variables, it can be applied to any number of analysis methods that are determined by the research objectives. The choice of analysis method influences (or is influenced by) overall study design, sample sizes, variable selection, data collection, as well as the inferences that can be made regarding the SESF variables being evaluated and external validity of the study findings. In some regard then, the choice of analysis method encompasses all the previous steps in this methodological guide. We coded the data analysis methods used in the reviewed literature into 11 general categories, provided in Table 6, including potential advantages and disadvantages that researchers might have to weigh with each approach, as well as example studies that exemplify each category.

Studies generally applied multiple analysis methods, but the most frequently coded approach included explanatory/dependent variable analyses (n = 31). Fourteen studies focused on characterizing one or multiple SESs through descriptive or comparative assessments of SESF variables rather than explicitly analyzing causal mechanisms or dependent variables. We further differentiated these SES characterization studies into “ descriptive ” characterization studies (n = 7), which assess and compare variable measures without a normative value judgement, and “ evaluative ” characterization studies (n = 7), which provide a normative score (such as from 0-1), alongside supporting theory or literature, for how high or low measures for each variable relate to the evaluative criteria, e.g., potential for sustainability or collective action. Twelve studies utilized modeling and simulation-based analyses (n = 12) to investigate SES structure and behavior, including agent-based and system dynamics models. Seven studies used participatory modeling and evaluation techniques, exploring local expert knowledge and perceptions of the SES as a key source of scientific insight in what are often otherwise data-scarce SES contexts. An additional seven publications applied meta-analyses of the published literature or other existing aggregated case databases. Notably, only one of these studies specifically synthesized empirical SESF literature (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020), while the rest used the SESF as a coding tool for existing aggregated cross-case data. We labeled another category as mixed-conceptual (n = 6), representing studies that drew from other conceptual or theoretical frameworks, typically adapting only certain components, or heavily modified versions, of the SESF. Although the results of such studies may be less directly comparable to other SESF applications, they represent one way in which the SESF is being adapted to explore new theoretical insights and lines of inquiry beyond its original design.

(10) Is study SES data publicly available?

Data transparency, including data sharing as well as other contextual information such as how the data were generated or limitations regarding the data, is a critical component of creating more comparable SES knowledge. Eight of the reviewed publications identified an available data source, evaluated by the criteria of whether the publication, journal page, or linked supplementary material explicitly identified a publicly available source for the study data. Although the majority of survey respondents agreed that using the SESF made it more likely that their empirical data can be compared with other SESF studies, this question also had the largest number of neutral responses (7) of all of the questions. Response comments noted the diversity of SES case contexts and uniqueness of each case as challenges. Supplementary publication materials, synthetic databases, and open-source repositories are examples of useful strategies for increasing comparability across heterogeneous SES studies. Several databases have been developed in an attempt to facilitate data synthesis and comparison across SES cases, such as the Dartmouth SESMAD project (Cox et al. 2020; https://sesmad.dartmouth.edu/ ), SES Library ( https://seslibrary.asu.edu/ ), and more context specific databases such as the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI; http://ifri.forgov.org ) and Nepal Irrigation Institutions and Systems (NIIS; https://ulrichfrey.eu/en/niis/ ). How well a given case dataset “ fits ” to the content structure of these databases may vary depending on how the SESF was applied for a given study. Open-source data repositories provide more flexibility for authors regarding how or in what format they share their SES case data but may be less immediately comparable to other cases.

The SESF partly aims to provide a common language of variables to coordinate and compare findings, while simultaneously allowing for adaptability by not specifying which variables or methods should be applied to case-specific contexts (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). It has become increasingly clear that there is a tension between these two goals (Thiel et al. 2015, Partelow 2018). The contextual adaptability of the SESF has been empirically demonstrated (Partelow 2018) and is arguably its core strength, but so far there has been little progress in building synthetic and cumulative SES knowledge from across empirical SESF cases (Schlager and Cox 2018, Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020). Social-ecological systems frameworks’ study comparability has been challenged by inconsistent applications, interpretations, definitions, and measures (Cumming et al. 2020), which may be exacerbated by the lack of clear procedures or guidance for how to actually apply the SESF (Partelow 2018). Our methodological guide attempts to address this by providing a set of steps or decisions that encourage researchers to critically reflect upon and provide transparency regarding these methodological decisions, which can improve both contextualized study designs while enabling cross-study comparability without limiting flexibility. In the following sections, we discuss the above trends and gaps in the reviewed literature and reflect on how they have influenced our presentation of the guide, which emphasizes transparency over rigid procedure. Transparency emerged as the key issue during the review and coding process when we noted inconsistencies in documenting what we viewed as key methodological decisions in applying the SESF.

Methods used in the SESF literature are highly heterogeneous

Quantitative applications of the SESF are highly heterogeneous. Two non-mutually exclusive perspectives can be considered. The SESF applications generally require interdisciplinary knowledge to operationalize the many variables, i.e., variable selection, data collection, data transformation, analysis, etc. The framework is also applied to understand different contextual problems. Thus, researchers will choose different methodological strategies because there is no current guide or template. More applications may be needed until a reasonable saturation point of studies applying similar methods can be meaningfully compared within contexts.

Using quantitative data is typically employed to facilitate hypothesis testing, prediction, and forecasting. The majority of reviewed publications relied heavily on explanatory/outcome variable analysis methods such as linear and logistic regression techniques. However, several publications in this review noted the limitation of these methods in narrowing analyses of SESs to a series of linear pairwise relationships that often involve investigating the explanatory power of a wide range of social-ecological indicators on only a single or small number of dependent variables representing overall outcomes. Development of more experimental methods and large time-scale studies are needed to advance research into SES causal mechanisms (Table 6; Cumming et al. 2020). Methodological transparency is critically important when making theoretical jumps to generalizability, necessitating clarity and transparency regarding the causal inferences and variable relationships being reported (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020).

Social-ecological systems research and the SESF itself draw heavily from complex systems theory, conceptualizing SESs as components with a high degree of interaction or connections, forming a network with often nonlinear, dynamic, and emergent properties (Berkes et al. 2003, Ostrom 2009, Preiser et al. 2018). Despite this, previous critical reflections have identified a lack of SES research that empirically applies these concepts of complexity, such as modeling approaches that explore the connections, dynamics, and feedback effects within SESs rather than simply analyses of pairwise relations between variables (Pulver et al. 2018, Cumming et al. 2020, Gomez-Santiz et al. 2021). To be certain, the often data-scarce and open nature of many SES contexts can obscure attempts to explore the interdependent and interactive effects in more detail, and the SESF’s focus on variables rather than connections adds further ambiguity as to how researchers should conceptualize an SES (Pulver et al. 2018). Still, if we accept that complex systems have emergent properties, then it is clear that our SES methodological toolkit needs to explore ways to expand beyond sums of variable-outcome interactions and into methods that focus on capturing, rather than reducing, complexity. Several publications in our review explore promising analytical techniques in these directions, including agent-based modeling to test the emergent properties of individual actor and resource unit behavior on SES outcomes (Cenek and Franklin 2017, Lindkvist et al. 2017), supervised and unsupervised machine learning to analyze policy impacts on SESs (Rana and Miller 2019b) and assess spatial SES archetypes (Rocha et al. 2020), and system dynamics modeling to simulate SES dynamics under various scenarios (Baur and Binder 2015).

Integrative participatory methods, those which involve local actors in knowledge co-production and study design, are some of the most promising and feasible approaches for improving our understanding of SES complexity in information-scarce contexts. They can further lead to better forecasting and scenario building that inform policy and actionable change because of the embedded nature of knowledge creation and learning with those actors directly involved in social-ecological change processes (Eelderink et al. 2020, Caniglia et al. 2021). Notable approaches from our review include participatory fuzzy cognitive mapping to create SES dynamics models based on stakeholder knowledge (Ziegler et al. 2019) and prospective structural analysis to support SES scenario building (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015). Such strategically designed integration may come at the cost of time and resources and may require a shared learning process to integrate differing knowledge systems and epistemologies (e.g., transdisciplinarity; Tengö et al. 2014, Norström et al. 2020). Nonetheless, it can promote stakeholder ownership and local study relevance while providing scientists with improved knowledge of important social and ecological components and processes within the SES (Reed et al. 2014, Fischer et al. 2015, Guerrero et al. 2018).

In calling for more transdisciplinary SES research, it is pertinent to consider the tension between case specificity and the need for comparability. This is because transdisciplinary and other knowledge co-production methods have been more often associated with case-specific research than that designed to allow generalizability across multiple cases. However, recent literature demonstrates that knowledge co-production approaches are increasingly being applied with decision makers working across multiple regions or even countries (Gurney et al. 2019). We do not view the need for broadly comparable SES research as being diametrically opposed to case-focused and problem-driven or action-oriented research. Although empirical applications are growing, published SESF research is still relatively scarce, and the sample becomes smaller still when subdivided into more granular categories such as methodological approach or sector (Appendix 1, Table A1.2; Partelow 2018). Although recent literature rightfully pushes for SES research to move beyond the exploration and into theory development (Cumming et al. 2020, Cox et al. 2021), we particularly emphasize the need for more (and more diverse) empirical SESF applications to identify patterns of both more broadly comparable, as well as more context specific, SES variables and interactions across cases. In their post-Ostrom agenda, Cumming et al. 2020 charted a path forward for theory-oriented SES research via “ middle-range ” theory development in which building explanations of highly complex SES phenomena might entail building partial theories with a bounded or contextual applicability rather than one all-encompassing SES theory. More highly detailed case-specific SES studies play an important building block in developing new hypotheses and theories to test (Guerrero et al. 2018), and “ filling out ” the SESF literature with more wide-ranging cases is needed for these bounded explanations to emerge. This will likely lead to not only bounded theories but also more bounded SES frameworks covering a more specific and comparable range of contexts, such as SES frameworks for specific resource sectors (Partelow 2018), governance arrangements, or geographic or social-cultural contexts.

The SES literature has made note of a number of gaps that limit the accumulation of knowledge from individual case studies to broader theoretical generalizations (Cox et al. 2021). Both syntheses of diverse case studies and large-scale comparative research projects are key for enabling empirically robust theory building, but current SESF literature struggles to do both (Partelow 2018). Additionally, although we identified 21 large-N comparative studies, most units of analysis were at the individual or local level (rather than, e.g., comparisons of multiple SES cases) and sampled within a limited spatial context (e.g., within one district), likely reducing the external validity beyond that context (Poteete et al. 2010). Only two reviewed studies applied large-N analyses to regional units of analysis, which has been identified as a critical and under-represented focal level of SES analysis (Rounsevell et al. 2012, Glaser and Glaeser 2014), suggesting that researchers are facing a challenge in creating broadly comparative SES research at larger spatial levels. To some extent this may reflect a collective action problem in scientific research itself, in which the collective goal of large-scale SES research may be offset by costs of coordination and collaboration, incentivizing smaller projects at the individual level (Cox et al. 2021). However, it also reflects trade-offs in study design between comparability and case-specificity, in which comparing a wider and more diverse range of SES contexts may necessitate measuring a more general list of broadly relevant variables, risking overgeneralization or missing key variables that are highly relevant but not to all cases (Gurney et al. 2019). Because the SESF itself is decomposable into multiple levels of generalization, one approach for large-N SES analyses is to compare a range of broad, universally relevant 2nd-tier variables across all SES cases, while also including more bounded and decomposed (e.g., 3rd-tier variables), which might be highly influential but only within a subset of cases (Gurney et al. 2019). Still, these approaches are likely to have high resource and coordination costs, suggesting the need for continued synthetic analysis of case-specific SESF research. Several reviewed studies synthesized secondary case databases to assess patterns across multiple SESs, however only one specifically synthesized patterns across existing empirical SESF studies, and this meta-analysis noted challenges regarding methodological transparency that limited the level of detail for case comparison (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020). It is evident from these patterns in the literature that further attention to methodological transparency and documentation in SESF studies is needed.

Methodological transparency issues: two main challenges

We identified continued ambiguity regarding 2nd-tier variable and measurable indicator selection as perhaps one of the most critical methodological challenges facing between-study SESF comparability and middle-range theory development. Methodological transparency is a broader academic challenge but should not necessarily be attributed to carelessness or negligence. A variety of reasons exist, ranging from scientific publishing standards regarding short and concise methods, journal word counts and formatting requirements, and procedural doubt or the “ fear ” of showing too much. Or, publications may simply have enough documentation to support the findings being presented, only lacking in certain explicit details at the meta-analytical level. Furthermore, many SESF publications are interdisciplinary, and methodological assumptions regarded as common knowledge in one field or discipline may need to be explained to scholars in another field in interdisciplinary journals. Regardless, we encourage SESF researchers to be as transparent as possible regarding the methodological steps we have outlined, such as making full use of supplementary materials to share these extra layers of methodological procedure (i.e., the choices at each step of the guide). Below we reflect on two specific transparency challenges identified in this review:

Transparency challenge 1: which 2nd-tier variables are being applied and why?

The SESF 2nd-tier variables lack clarity in how to conceptualize and measure them for a given case, and many researchers are finding it difficult and subjective to link their case SES data to the generalized concepts, which are the SESF 2nd-tier variables. Although the majority of surveyed authors stated that they understood how to identify relevant variables for a case, both publications and survey respondents noted recurring challenges regarding how to conceptualize or define the 2nd-tier variables within their specific case context, or how to categorize existing empirical and secondary data to specific variables. Importantly, the variable selection criteria in many studies is often unclear, which hinders learning in the research community, interpretability, and cross-case comparisons. One critical building block to SESF research is identifying which 2nd-tier variables are relevant or generalizable across specific SES contexts (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). However, it is often unclear if the inclusion or exclusion of variables is deductive and theory driven (e.g., hypothesis-based), inductive (e.g., participatory evaluation), or because available secondary data aligns with particular variables. It could also be that certain variables are relevant across a larger number of cases, or that they are less abstract and easier to conceptualize and measure than others. Criteria for variable modifications including the inclusion of new variables are also often unclear and lacking justification (Partelow 2018). We argue that although there is no specifically right or wrong approach to applying the SESF variables, it is clear from our review that the lack of consistency and transparency limits both the ability to compare and contrast study findings with others.

Transparency challenge 2: how are 2nd-tier variables being measured?

To quantitatively measure abstract concepts, such as many of the 2nd-tier SESF variables, one or more empirically measurable indicators are required. Nearly all the variables could have many different possible indicators, such as RS5 - System productivity, in which indicators range from coastal chlorophyll levels, to kilograms of production of a resource unit, to average park visitation (Table 4). The context of those indicators presumably matters in each case, and the role that each plays in the case when abstracted to the broader concept of “ system productivity ” , may not mean the same thing outside of those contexts. Even indicators that appear similar on the surface may be representing different conceptual phenomena in the SES, such as A1, i.e., number of actors; different studies measure the number of relevant actors in terms of a raw population value, or as population density in a given spatial unit, or as a ratio of another population. Each measure informs us about the same concept in ways that might confer different insights or highlight different phenomena. Most surveyed researchers found it unclear how to select appropriate measurable indicators for the variables in their research (Fig. 2) and documentation of indicator selection was inconsistent in the reviewed literature. Indeed, indicator selection is an often messy process driven by data availability and feasibility. Numerous publications noted challenges in data scarcity (Budiharta et al. 2016, Lindkvist et al. 2017, Filbee-Dexter et al. 2018, Rana and Miller 2019b, Rocha et al. 2020), and studies are often relying on a wide range of primary and secondary sources to collect indicator data (Table 5), which may vary in structure, comprehensiveness, feasibility, and quality (Neumann and Graeff 2015). As such, research with the SESF is often by practical necessity relying on incomplete or low-quality data sources or using certain available data as proxies for other indicators. Transparency regarding how these decisions were made will help future researchers learn how to deal with those issues and enhance the interpretability of study findings.

Standardizing SES indicators is not a feasible or arguably desirable approach given the range of case contexts and research objectives across individual SESF studies. We rather encourage continued empirical applications so that patterns of context specific indicator measures may emerge, even when generalizability is not the core objective. Increased transparency regarding SESF variable and empirical indicator selection can aid in this cumulative accumulation of knowledge. As existing SESF studies are one of the most important references for researchers operationalizing the SESF variables in their work, we further suggest the development of a more comprehensive and accessible database of SESF variables and measurable indicators, such as the wiki-type format proposed by Cox et al. 2021 as an important path forward.

Applying the multi-step methodological guide to the SESF

This review builds on the methodological gaps identified by Partelow 2018, by providing a full methodological guide to the SESF. We see this guide as being supplemental to existing SESF guides in the literature, including guides for conceptualizing a case SES and related institutional and collective action challenges (Hinkel et al. 2015), for characterizing an SES at the local level (Delgado-Serrano and Ramos 2015), and for coevolving SESF research with sustainability science (Partelow 2016).

Our guide should be considered a multi-step, rather than step-by-step, procedure. We recognize that different research goals and researcher interests will align with different methodological trajectories. For example, a theory-driven researcher might first select the 2nd-tier variables and the hypotheses they expect to be important for collective action in their case SES, after which they might identify a set of measurable indicators, whereas another researcher applying a more inductive approach might apply participatory modeling methods to identify important SES factors and only in the analysis stage code these to the SESF variables. We see this flexibility as a strength of the framework, and although we present our methodological steps in what we interpret as a broadly logical order, we encourage researchers using this guide to answer these questions in the order that makes sense for their own research. The steps of this guide may best be interpreted as key “ decision points ” and questions that a researcher should be able to answer and clearly document with the long-term goal of building and improving comparable research with the SESF.

Although this guide was specifically developed around a review of quantitative applications of the SESF, we believe it is applicable to all future applications of the framework including qualitative approaches, and it may be able to inform SES studies beyond the SESF. Both quantitative and qualitative studies are critical for progressing the field. For example, descriptive SESF analyses have been found to often include case descriptions of a large range of variables that are then ignored in explanations of case outcomes, leading to confusion about which variables are actually relevant (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020). This also warrants some reflection by researchers on the anticipated level of generalizability of the research, where, in many cases, a more in-depth case study may simply be less focused on generalizability in lieu of a richer descriptive analysis of a specific context. Still, clear and formal narrative summaries answering the questions in this guide (even simple visual diagrams of the variable relationships identified, as suggested by Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2020) could improve generalizability and accessibility of SES findings for synthetic analysis even in cases where creating generalizable findings is not a priority, without compromising the depth of the overall analysis. Our guide was developed with an understanding of this current state of the SESF literature, and we expect more context-specific and potentially more standardized procedures to eventually develop based out of these more specialized versions of the SESF, similar to existing SESF modifications for marine aquaculture (Johnson et al. 2019), lobster and benthic small-scale fisheries (Basurto et al. 2013, Partelow and Boda 2015), urban stormwater management (Flynn and Davidson 2016) and food systems research (Marshall 2015).

Our review analyzed the step-by-step decisions scholars have made when applying the SESF with quantitative methods. With this review data, we have developed a multi-step methodological guide for new applications of the SESF, while also examining current trends and discussing challenges. Our guide and discussion aim to promote methodological transparency as the basis for enhancing comparability across publications and making diagnostic place-based research more meaningfully tailored to context. Still, our review found that researchers are finding it unclear how to apply the SESF to create comparable research, particularly in the areas of variable and indicator selection, and the methodological decisions being made within studies are often ambiguous. Although we noted a high degree of methodological heterogeneity in quantitative SESF applications, analyses are still skewed toward certain methods and case sectors. We call for more empirical applications of the SESF and encourage both methodological plurality and case diversity, alongside enhanced methodological transparency. In doing so, comparability and synthesis can emerge across varying methodological, theoretical, sector-specific, and other dimensions. We argue that this can move our understanding of SESs as complex adaptive systems forward and help resolve tensions between the need for contextual adaptability and the need for comparison.

RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was made possible through funding by the German Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) under the project COMPASS: Comparing Aquaculture System Sustainability (grant number 031B0785). We are thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their detailed and insightful comments.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available at https://figshare.com/s/e81b2ff83543c5bb0aac . The 51 publications evaluated for this review are listed in Appendix 2. Code sharing is not applicable to this article because results are descriptive summaries.

LITERATURE CITED

Aaron MacNeil, M., and J. E. Cinner. 2013. Hierarchical livelihood outcomes among co-managed fisheries. Global Environmental Change 23(6):1393-1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.003

Aswani, S., G. G. Gurney, S. Mulville, J. Matera, and M. Gurven. 2013. Insights from experimental economics on local cooperation in a small-scale fishery management system. Global Environmental Change 23(6):1402–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.003

Basurto, X., S. Gelcich, and E. Ostrom. 2013. The social-ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change 23(6):1366-1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.001

Basurto, X., and E. Ostrom. 2009. The core challenges of moving beyond Garrett Hardin. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1(3):255-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450903040447

Baur, I., and C. R. Binder. 2015. Modeling and assessing scenarios of common property pastures management in Switzerland. Ecological Economics 119:292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.019

Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. M. A. Chan, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, G. Epstein, M. P. Nelson, R. Stedman, T. L. Teel, R. E. W. Thomas, C. Wyborn, D. Curran, A. Greenberg, J. Sandlos, and D. Veríssimo. 2016. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology 31(1):56-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12788

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957

Budiharta, S., E. Meijaard, J. A. Wells, N. K. Abram, and K. A. Wilson. 2016. Enhancing feasibility: incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning. Environmental Science and Policy 64:83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.014

Caniglia, G., C. Luederitz, T. von Wirth, I. Fazey, B. Martín-López, K. Hondrila, A. König, H. von Wehrden, N. A. Schäpke, M. D. Laubichler, and D. J. Lang. 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4(2):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cenek, M., and M. Franklin. 2017. An adaptable agent-based model for guiding multi-species Pacific salmon fisheries management within a SES framework. Ecological Modelling 360:132-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.06.024

Christou, M., V. Sgardeli, A. C. Tsikliras, G. Tserpes, and K. I. Stergiou. 2020. A probabilistic model that determines the social ecological system (SES) attributes that lead to successful discard management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 30(1):109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09593-0

Cinner, J. E., T. R. McClanahan, M. Aaron MacNeil, N. A. J. Graham, T. M. Daw, A. Mukminin, D. A. Feary, A. L. Rabearisoa, A. Wamukota, N. Jiddawi, S. J. Campbell, A. H. Baird, F. A. Januchowski-Hartley, S. Hamed, R. Lahari, T. Morove, and J. Kuange. 2012. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(14):5219-5222. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121215109

Cox, M., G. G. Gurney, J. M. Anderies, E. Coleman, E. Darling, G. Epstein, U. J. Frey, M. Nenadovic, E. Schlager, and S. Villamayor-Tomas. 2021. Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the Ostrom Workshop frameworks. Ecology and Society 26(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12092-260117

Cox, M., S. Villamayor-Tomas, N. C. Ban, G. Epstein, L. Evans, F. Fleischman, M. Nenadovic, G. A. Garcia-Lopez, F. van Laerhoven, C. Meek, I. P. Ibarra, and M. Schoon. 2020. From concepts to comparisons: a resource for diagnosis and measurement in social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy 107:211-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.009

Cox, M., S. Villamayor-Tomas, G. Epstein, L. Evans, N. C. Ban, F. Fleischman, M. Nenadovic, and G. Garcia-Lopez. 2016. Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Global Environmental Change 39:45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cumming, G. S., G. Epstein, J. M. Anderies, C. I. Apetrei, J. Baggio, Ö. Bodin, S. Chawla, H. S. Clements, M. Cox, L. Egli, G. G. Gurney, M. Lubell, N. Magliocca, T. H. Morrison, B. Müller, R. Seppelt, M. Schlüter, H. Unnikrishnan, S. Villamayor-Tomas, and C. M. Weible. 2020. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 44:26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005

Dancette, R., and L. Sebastien. 2019. The actor in 4 dimensions: a relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework. MethodsX 6:1798–1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.07.025

Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., E. Oteros-Rozas, P. Vanwildemeersch, C. Ortíz-Guerrero, S. London, and R. Escalante. 2015. Local perceptions on social-ecological dynamics in Latin America in three community-based natural resource management systems. Ecology and Society 20(4):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07965-200424

Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., and P. Ramos. 2015. Making Ostrom’s framework applicable to characterise social ecological systems at the local level. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):808-830. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.567

Dressel, S., G. Ericsson, and C. Sandström. 2018. Mapping social-ecological systems to understand the challenges underlying wildlife management. Environmental Science and Policy 84:105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.007

Eelderink, M., J. M. Vervoort, and F. van Laerhoven. 2020. Using participatory action research to operationalize critical systems thinking in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 25(1):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11369-250116

Epstein, G., J. M. Vogt, S. K. Mincey, M. Cox, and B. Fischer. 2013. Missing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. International Journal of the Commons 7(2):432-453. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.371

Filbee-Dexter, K., C. C. Symons, K. Jones, H. A. Haig, J. Pittman, S. M. Alexander, and M. J. Burke. 2018. Quantifying ecological and social drivers of ecological surprise. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(5):2135-2146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13171

Fischer, J., T. A. Gardner, E. M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T. P. Hughes, T. Luthe, M. Maass, M. Meacham, A. V. Norström, G. Peterson, C. Queiroz, R. Seppelt, M. Spierenburg, and J. Tenhunen. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

Flynn, C. D., and C. I. Davidson. 2016. Adapting the social-ecological system framework for urban stormwater management: the case of green infrastructure adoption. Ecology and Society 21(4):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08756-210419

Foster, T., and R. Hope. 2016. A multi-decadal and social-ecological systems analysis of community waterpoint payment behaviours in rural Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies 47(A):85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.026

Frey, U. J., and M. Cox. 2015. Building a diagnostic ontology of social-ecological systems. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):595-618. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.505

Fujitani, M. L., C. Riepe, T. Pagel, M. Buoro, F. Santoul, R. Lassus, J. Cucherousset, and R. Arlinghaus. 2020. Ecological and social constraints are key for voluntary investments into renewable natural resources. Global Environmental Change 63:102125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102125

Glaser, M., and B. Glaeser. 2014. Towards a framework for cross-scale and multi-level analysis of coastal and marine social-ecological systems dynamics. Regional Environmental Change 14(6):2039-2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0637-5

Gomez-Santiz, F., M. Perevochtchikova, and D. Ezzine-de-Blas. 2021. Behind the scenes: scientific networks driving the operationalization of the social-ecological system framework. Science of the Total Environment 787:147473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147473

Guba, E. G. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ 29(2):75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777

Guerrero, A. M., N. J. Bennett, K. A. Wilson, N. Carter, D. Gill, M. Mills, C. D. Ives, M. J. Selinske, C. Larrosa, S. Bekessy, F. A. Januchowski-Hartley, H. Travers, C. A. Wyborn, and A. Nuno. 2018. Achieving the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review and prospectus. Ecology and Society 23(3):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10232-230338

Gurney, G. G., J. E. Cinner, J. Sartin, R. L. Pressey, N. C. Ban, N. A. Marshall, and D. Prabuning. 2016. Participation in devolved commons management: multiscale socioeconomic factors related to individuals’ participation in community-based management of marine protected areas in Indonesia. Environmental Science and Policy 61:212-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.015

Gurney, G. G., E. S. Darling, S. D. Jupiter, S. Mangubhai, T. R. McClanahan, P. Lestari, S. Pardede, S. J. Campbell, M. Fox, W. Naisilisili, N. A. Muthiga, S. D’agata, K. E. Holmes, and N. A. Rossi. 2019. Implementing a social-ecological systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Biological Conservation 240:108298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108298

Haider, L. J., B. Neusel, G. D. Peterson, and M. Schlüter. 2019. Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability 21(5):2183-2224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0132-0

Hicks, C. C., C. Fitzsimmons, and N. V. C. Polunin. 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environmental Conservation 37(4):464-477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000822

Hinkel, J., P. W. G. Bots, and M. Schlüter. 2014. Enhancing the Ostrom social-ecological system framework through formalization. Ecology and Society 19(3):51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06475-190351

Hinkel, J., M. E. Cox, M. Schlüter, C. R. Binder, and T. Falk. 2015. A diagnostic procedure for applying the social-ecological systems framework in diverse cases. Ecology and Society 20(1):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07023-200132

Hoque, S. F., R. Hope, S. T. Arif, T. Akhter, M. Naz, and M. Salehin. 2019. A social-ecological analysis of drinking water risks in coastal Bangladesh. Science of the Total Environment 679:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.359

Johnson, T. R., K. Beard, D. C. Brady, C. J. Byron, C. Cleaver, K. Duffy, N. Keeney, M. Kimble, M. Miller, S. Moeykens, M. Teisl, G. P. van Walsum, and J. Yuan. 2019. A social-ecological system framework for marine aquaculture research. ustainability 11(9):2522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092522

Kelly, R. P., A. L. Erickson, L. A. Mease, W. Battista, J. N. Kittinger, and R. Fujita. 2015. Embracing thresholds for better environmental management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370(1659):20130276. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0276

Klümper, F., and I. Theesfeld. 2017. The land-water-food nexus: expanding the social-ecological system framework to link land and water governance. Resources 6(3):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030028

Lam, D. P. M., M. E. Freund, J. Kny, O. Marg, M. Mbah, L. Theiler, M. Bergmann, B. Brohmann, D. J. Lang, and M. Schäfer. 2021. Transdisciplinary research: towards an integrative perspective. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 30(4):243-249. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.4.7

Leslie, H. M., X. Basurto, M. Nenadovic, L. Sievanen, K. C. Cavanaugh, J. J. Cota-Nieto, B. E. Erisman, E. Finkbeiner, G. Hinojosa-Arango, M. Moreno-Báez, S. Nagavarapu, S. M. W. Reddy, A. Sánchez-Rodríguez, K. Siegel, J. J. Ulibarria-Valenzuela, A. H. Weaver, and O. Aburto-Oropeza. 2015. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(19):5979-5984. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414640112

Lindkvist, E., X. Basurto, and M. Schlüter. 2017. Micro-level explanations for emergent patterns of self-governance arrangements in small-scale fisheries—A modeling approach. PLOS ONE 12(4):e0179439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175532

Marshall, G. R. 2015. A social-ecological systems framework for food systems research: accommodating transformation systems and their products. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):881. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.587

McGinnis, M. D., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19(2):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

Naiga, R., and M. Penker. 2014. Determinants of users’ willingness to contribute to safe water provision in rural Uganda. Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government 12(3):695–714. https://doi.org/10.4335/12.3.695-714(2014)

Neumann, R., and P. Graeff. 2015. Quantitative approaches to comparative analyses: data properties and their implications for theory, measurement and modelling. European Political Science 14(4):385-393. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.59

Norström, A. V., C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B. M. Campbell, J. G. Canadell, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E. A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J.-B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M.-F. Loutre, A. M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G. D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C. I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, and H. Österblom. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3):182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Okumu, B., and E. Muchapondwa. 2020. Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: evidence from Kenyan community forest associations. Forest Policy and Economics 113:102122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102122

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39):15181-15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37(4):451-463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834

Osuka, K., S. Rosendo, M. Riddell, J. Huet, M. Daide, E. Chauque, and M. Samoilys. 2020. Applying a social-ecological systems approach to understanding local marine management trajectories in Northern Mozambique. Sustainability 12(9):3904. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093904

Oviedo, A. F. P., and M. Bursztyn. 2016. The fortune of the commons: participatory evaluation of small-scale fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Management 57(5):1009-1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0660-z

Partelow, S. 2016. Coevolving Ostrom’s social-ecological systems (SES) framework and sustainability science: four key co-benefits. Sustainability Science 11(3):399-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0351-3

Partelow, S. 2018. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecology and Society 23(4):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436

Partelow, S. 2019. Analyzing natural resource governance with the social-ecological systems framework. Pages 65-93 in F. Nunan, editor. Governing renewable natural resources: theories and frameworks. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053009-4

Partelow, S., and C. Boda. 2015. A modified diagnostic social-ecological system framework for lobster fisheries: case implementation and sustainability assessment in Southern California. Ocean and Coastal Management 114:204-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.022

Partelow, S., M. Fujitani, V. Soundararajan, and A. Schlüter. 2019. Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecology and Society 24(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10724-240115

Partelow, S., A. Jäger, and A. Schlüter. 2021. Linking fisher perceptions to social-ecological context: mixed method application of the SES framework in Costa Rica. Human Ecology 49(2):187-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00228-x

Partelow, S., P. Senff, N. Buhari, and A. Schlüter. 2018. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework in pond aquaculture. International Journal of the Commons 12(1):485-518. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.834

Poteete, A. R., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Broadly comparative field-based research. Pages 64-88 in A. R. Poteete, M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom, editors. Working together: collective action, the commons and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835157.64

Preiser, R., R. Biggs, A. De Vos, and C. Folke. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society 23(4):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446

Pulver, S., N. Ulibarri, K. L. Sobocinski, S. M. Alexander, M. L. Johnson, P. F. McCord, and J. Dell’Angelo. 2018. Frontiers in socio-environmental research: components, connections, scale, and context. Ecology and Society 23(3):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10280-230323

Queirós, A., D. Faria, and F. Almeida. 2017. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies 3(9):369-387.

Rana, P., and D. C. Miller. 2019a. Explaining long-term outcome trajectories in social-ecological systems. PLoS ONE 14(4):e0215230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215230

Rana, P., and D. C. Miller. 2019b. Machine learning to analyze the social-ecological impacts of natural resource policy: insights from community forest management in the Indian Himalaya. Environmental Research Letters 14(2):024008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa8f

Reed, M. S., L. C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A. C. Evely, and J. H. J. Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 146:337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021

Reyers, B., J. L. Nel, P. J. O’Farrell, N. Sitas, and D. C. Nel. 2015. Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24):7362-7368. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414374112

Rocha, J., K. Malmborg, L. Gordon, K. Brauman, and F. DeClerck. 2020. Mapping social-ecological systems archetypes. Environmental Research Letters 15(3):034017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666e

Roquetti, D. R., E. M. Moretto, and S. M. P. Pulice. 2017. Dam-forced displacement and social-ecological resilience: The Barra Grande hydropower plant in southern Brazil. Ambiente y Sociedade 20(3):115-134. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc153r2v2032017

Rounsevell, M. D. A., B. Pedroli, K.-H. Erb, M. Gramberger, A. G. Busck, H. Haberl, S. Kristensen, T. Kuemmerle, S. Lavorel, M. Lindner, H. Lotze-Campen, M. J. Metzger, D. Murray-Rust, A. Popp, M. Pérez-Soba, A. Reenberg, A. Vadineanu, P. H. Verburg, and B. Wolfslehner. 2012. Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 29(4):899-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.007

Schlager, E., and M. Cox. 2018. The IAD framework and the SES framework: an introduction and assessment of the Ostrom workshop frameworks. Pages in C. M. Weible and P. A. Sabatier, editors. Theories of the policy process. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-7

Schmitt-Harsh, M. L., and S. K. Mincey. 2020. Operationalizing the social-ecological system framework to assess residential forest structure: a case study in Bloomington, Indiana. Ecology and Society 25(2):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11564-250214

Sharma, D., I. Holmes, G. Vergara-Asenjo, W. N. Miller, M. Cunampio, R. B. Cunampio, M. B. Cunampio, and C. Potvin. 2016. A comparison of influences on the landscape of two social-ecological systems. Land Use Policy 57:499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.018

Su, Y., E. Araral, and Y. Wang. 2020. The effects of farmland use rights trading and labor outmigration on the governance of the irrigation commons: evidence from China. Land Use Policy 91:104378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104378

Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43(5):579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Thiel, A., M. E. Adamseged, and C. Baake. 2015. Evaluating an instrument for institutional crafting: how Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework is applied. Environmental Science and Policy 53:152-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.020

van Laerhoven, F., M. Schoon, and S. Villamayor-Tomas. 2020. Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of Ostrom’s Governing the Commons : traditions and trends in the study of the commons, revisited. International Journal of the Commons 14(1):208-224. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1030

Villamayor-Tomas, S., C. Oberlack, G. Epstein, S. Partelow, M. Roggero, E. Kellner, M. Tschopp, and M. Cox. 2020. Using case study data to understand SES interactions: a model-centered meta-analysis of SES framework applications. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 44:48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.05.002

Vogt, J. M., G. B. Epstein, S. K. Mincey, B. C. Fischer, and P. McCord. 2015. Putting the “ E ” in SES: unpacking the ecology in the Ostrom social-ecological system framework. Ecology and Society 20(1):55. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07239-200155

Yandle, T., D. S. Noonan, and B. Gazley. 2016. Philanthropic support of aational parks: analysis using the social-ecological systems framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016643612

Ziegler, J. P., S. E. Jones, and C. T. Solomon. 2019. Local stakeholders understand recreational fisheries as social-ecological systems but do not view governance systems as influential for system dynamics. International Journal of the Commons 13(2):1035-1048. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.945

Figures, Tables, & Appendices ×

Fig. 1. A methodological guide for applying the SESF. All decision tree branches for each step represent “and/or” considerations. Categories were coded based on the reviewed publications. † denotes categories which were not coded from the reviewed publications, but which we identify as additional potential considerations for that step.

Fig. 2. Summary of Likert-scale responses to social-ecological systems framework (SESF) researcher survey. n = 23 responses.

Fig. 3. Sankey flow diagrams summarizing how coded SESF variable indicators (categorized by the four most frequently applied SESF 1st-tier components) in the reviewed literature are associated with data collection type (left) and data type (right).

Fig. 4. 2nd-tier variable frequency and indicator data source (n = 26 publications which clearly documented which 2nd-tier variables were examined).

Table 1. 1st- and 2nd-tier variables of the SESF. Adapted from McGinnis and Ostrom (2014).

Table 2. 2nd-tier variable frequency by 1st-tier component category (n = 26 publications), and general variable selection criteria (n = 51 publications). Note: SESF = social-ecological systems framework, SES = social-ecological system.

Table 3. Spatial level of units of analysis vs. number of units being compared. Some studies contain multiple units of analysis (e.g., households and communities).

Table 4. Indicators for two of the most frequently applied 2nd-tier variables, RS5 and A2, extracted from reviewed publications. Multiple indicators separated by commas.

Table 5. Data collection methods and data measurement type for social-ecological systems framework (SESF) 2nd-tier variable indicators. Derived from n = 26 publications in which the examined 2nd-tier variables could be clearly identified.

Table 6. Study design and quantitative data analysis methods. Because many studies apply multiple analytical methods, the sum of number of publications across categories is greater than 51. Note: SES = social-ecological systems, SESF = social-ecological systems framework.

Click on a keyword to view more articles on that topic.

Submit a response to this article

Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 14 March 2018
• Volume 16 , pages 414–433, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Malin Eriksson 1 ,
• Mehdi Ghazinour 2 &
• Anne Hammarström 3  

246k Accesses

165 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory is appealing as a conceptual tool for guiding public mental health interventions. However, his theory underwent significant changes since its first inception during the late 1970s until his death in 2005, due to which the implications that can be drawn might differ depending on what concepts (i.e. early or later) of the theory is utilized. The aim of this paper was to examine how different concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory have been utilized in (public) mental health research, and to analyse the value of these different uses for guiding public mental health policy and practice. A systematic search for articles that have utilized concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory within the field of mental health resulted in a review of 16 published papers. We found that one set of papers ( N  = 10) used the early concepts of ecological systems without investigating interactions between these systems, while another set of papers used the concepts of ecological systems by also investigating interactions within and between these systems ( N  = 4). Another limited set of papers ( N  = 2) utilized the later concepts of proximal processes and the PPCT model. Our results show that studies using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system concepts by clearly considering interactions between and within these systems can result in recommendations that are most useful for guiding public mental health policy and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Conceptualising public mental health: development of a conceptual framework for public mental health

Introduction: Qualitative Research in Mental Health—Innovation and Collaboration

Problem Structuring Methods in Social-Ecological Systems

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Mental health is an integral part of health, defined as “a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (WHO 2014 ). Thus, mental health is more than just the absence of mental disorders or disabilities but a fundamental for good quality of life (WHO 2012 ). Mental illness is a growing global public health problem. The burden of mental and substance use disorders increased by 37.6% between 1990 and 2010 (Whiteford et al. 2013 ). In 2010, mental and substance abuse disorder accounted for 7.4% of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide, not the least caused by depressive and anxiety disorders (Whiteford et al. 2013 ). Depression alone accounts for 4.3% of the global burden of disease and is among the largest single causes of disability worldwide, particularly for women (WHO 2013 ). A review of the global burden of mental disorders (Kessler et al. 2007 ), based on data from the WHO mental health survey in 28 countries around the globe, concludes that mental disorders commonly occur in the general population worldwide, often making a debut at an early age, and are often associated with significant adverse costs to society. Since many mental disorders begin in childhood and adolescence (Kessler et al. 2007 ), early detection and interventions are needed. Given the magnitude of mental health problems worldwide, improvements in population health are only possible if countries make prevention of mental health disorders a public health priority (Whiteford et al. 2013 ).

Determinants of mental health and illness include individual, social and societal factors, and their interaction with each other (Sturgeon 2007 ). Thus, mental health needs to be understood from biological, psychological as well as sociocultural perspectives (Kendler 2008 ), and in order to prevent mental illness and promote mental health, there is a need to simultaneously target several multilayered factors (WHO 2012 ). Consequently, a broad public health perspective is needed to promote mental health and prevent mental illness (WHO 2005 ). Public mental health promotion focuses on the social determinants of health in order to strive for positive mental health for all (Jané-Llopis et al. 2005 ). The need for a holistic approach in (mental) health promotion and intervention has been underlined in several international health documents, not the least in the Alma Ata Declaration (WHO 1978 ), the Ottawa Charter (WHO 1986 ) and later by the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, WHO 2008 ). However, in order to clearly understand and act upon these multilayered and interacting social and biological processes that determine mental health, theory is crucial. Theory offers understandings of the causal pathways between various factors and health and disease, and can thus guide the planning and design of public mental health interventions. Despite this, the use of theory in epidemiology and public health research and interventions is still quite sparse (Krieger 2001 ). Further, despite the renewed interest in the social determinants of health, the dominant theories in epidemiology and public health have so far mainly been biomedical or lifestyle oriented, implying a focus on individual-level exposures, behaviours and interventions (Krieger 2014 ). There is clearly a need for theories embracing the complex and multifaceted pathways in mental health, in order to be useful for guiding public mental health policy and practice.

An ecological approach to public mental health

An ecological perspective offers a way to simultaneously emphasize both individual and contextual systems and the interdependent relations between these two systems, and thus offers a variety of conceptual and methodological tools for organizing and evaluating health-promotion interventions (Stokols 1996 ). From a public (mental) health perspective, ecological thinking is appealing since it encompasses several contexts in a very broad sense, including trends such as globalization, urbanization and environmental change, together with (but not solely focusing on) attributes and behaviours of individuals—all relevant aspects for understanding and determining public health (McLaren and Hawe 2004 ). Ecological theories emanate from many disciplines, but health research has mainly been influenced by psychology, including community and developmental psychology (Richard et al. 2011 ). The developmental psychologist, Urie Bronfenbrenner, stands out as one of the most influential contributors to ecological thinking in health research. Influenced by his mentor, Kurt Lewin, Bronfenbrenner ( 1977 ) started to develop his ecological theory as a new theoretical perspective for understanding human development. His theory underwent significant changes since its first inception during the late 1970s, as he constantly revised the theory until his death in 2005. Even though Bronfenbrenner developed his theory to understand human development, it has been extensively applied in many other fields including health research (see e.g. Richard et al. 2011 ; Grzywacz and Fuqua 2000 ).

The evolution of Bronfenbrenner’s theory has been described in different phases (Rosa and Tudge 2013 ): from an ecological approach to human development during the initial phase (1973–1979), followed by a stronger emphasis on the role of the individual and developmental processes during 1980–1993. Finally, in the last phase (1993–2006), the Process–Person–Context–Time model (PPCT) was developed and described as the most appropriate research design for the theory. This development of Bronfenbrenner’s theory has, however, been neglected in most studies. Tudge et al. ( 2009 ) examined 25 papers, all explicitly claiming to be based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory and published in 2001 or later, and found that only four of these studies built on the latest form (PPCT) of the theory. In this paper, we use the term “Bronfenbrenner’s theory” when referring to any of the versions of his theory, and elsewhere we specify what version or concepts we refer to.

Bronfenbrenner’s theory is clearly appealing as a conceptual tool for guiding interventions within the field of public mental health. However, the implications that can be drawn for public mental health policy and practice might differ depending on what concepts (i.e. early or later) of the theory are utilized, and how these concepts are applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine how different concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory have been utilized in (public) mental health research, and to analyse the value of these different uses for guiding public mental health policy and practice.

This implies that we do not intend to judge what version of the theory is the most correct to use, but rather to assess the value of using different concepts of the theory for guiding public mental health interventions. Even though Bronfenbrenner himself acknowledged the latest form of his theory as the most appropriate (Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000 ), we adhere to a pragmatic view of knowledge and theory. In line with Bryant ( 2009 ), we believe that “knowledge exists in the form of statements or theories which are best seen as instruments or tools; coping mechanisms, not once-and-for-all-time truths. … Rather knowledge [or theory, our note] is a web or a network of statements rather than an edifice, and the value of any form of knowledge [or theory, our note] is its usefulness and applicability which may be constrained in terms of time and place and user” (Bryant 2009 , pp. 4–5).

Thus, we believe that even use of earlier concepts from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory might potentially be useful for guiding public mental health interventions.

Methodological approach

Our overall research approach was theoretical in that we examined how different concepts (i.e. earlier versus later) of Bronfenbrenner’s theory have been used within the public mental health field and analysed the value of these uses for guiding public mental health policy and practice. The study was conducted in several distinct steps. Initially, we systematically read through a selection of Bronfenbrenner’s key publications (starting with earlier publications and stepwise continuing with later publications) in order to get a good overview and understanding of how his theory evolved and developed over time. Next, we identified key concepts and basic assumptions in the early and later versions of his theory that could be contrasted and compared with regard to mental health.

After that, we systematically searched for published articles that have utilized Bronfenbrenner’s theory within the field of mental health. This search was conducted to identify illustrative examples of how different concepts of his theory have been applied in mental health research. We searched for articles in the database Web of Sciences, using the following search terms: “Bronfenbrenner” AND “mental health” (topic, all years until November 9, 2015). This search resulted in 34 articles.

These 34 articles were briefly read through to assess their relevance for the purpose of our study. Our criterion for selecting articles for further review was that it should be possible to identify from the article what concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory were utilized (i.e. earlier or later concepts), even if not specifically stated by the authors. We made an independent assessment of what concepts of the theory were utilized in each paper, beyond the references used by the authors themselves. In some cases, the authors had referred, for example, to Bronfenbrenner’s later texts, without using concepts of later versions of the theory. Other inclusion criteria were that the concepts used should have been clearly described/defined and applied in the study (as opposed to only discussed in relation to results). Further, some kind of mental health indicator ought to have been used as an “outcome variable”. Articles that did not fulfil these criteria were excluded from further analysis, including purely methodological and/or theoretical papers. In this way, 15 of the 34 papers were selected for further analysis. In addition, another relevant article was found in the database Pub-Med, using “Bronfenbrenner” as the search term (all fields, until 9 November 2015).

In total, 16 relevant articles were identified, and these papers were used as a basis for analysing the value of using different concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory for guiding public mental health policy and practice. The selected articles were summarized by content in Appendix 1. They are included in the list of references (indicated by *) and are cited below.

Analysis of selected articles

All 16 papers were read and reread thoroughly in order to identify how concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory were utilized; the aims of using his theory within the field of mental health; study design; ecological concepts used; main findings with regard to mental health; conclusions drawn and implications for public mental health interventions (see Appendix 1 for a summary of this review). This review was then used as a basis for analysing the overall strengths and limitations of using different concepts of the theory with regard to guiding public mental health interventions.

Results and reflections

This section is structured in three parts: first, we briefly present the development of Bronfenbrenner’s theory over time and compare the analytical focus between different conceptual versions of his theory, with regard to mental health. Next, we present a summary of how various concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory have been applied in mental health research, and finally we discuss the value of these different uses of the theory for guiding public mental health interventions.

Key concepts and basic assumptions in early and later versions of Bronfenbrenner’s theory

In this section, we give a brief overview of the development of Bronfenbrenner’s theory during the period 1973–2006, mainly based on the three phases proposed by Rosa and Tudge ( 2013 ).

Phase 1 (1973–1979)—an ecological approach to human development

During the 1970s, Bronfenbrenner named his emerging theory an “ecological model of human development” (Rosa and Tudge 2013 ). Ecology was defined as a fit between the individual and his/her environment. In order to develop, and not only survive, the fit between the individual and its environment must be even closer (Bronfenbrenner 1975 ). In this earliest stage of the theory, Bronfenbrenner described the ecological environment as composed of systems at four different levels. The microsystem contains relations between the individual and the immediate environment surrounding the individual, such as the home, school and workplace (Bronfenbrenner 1977 ). The mesosystem comprises interrelations between major settings containing an individual, such as relations between home and school, home and peer-groups, etc. (Bronfenbrenner 1977 ). The exosystem embraces social structures—major institutions of the society—such as the world of work, the mass media and public agencies. These social structures do not themselves contain the developing person but impinge upon the immediate settings in which that person is found, and as such influence what is going on in these settings (Bronfenbrenner 1977 ). The macrosystem consists of the blueprints of a particular society such as laws and regulations but also unprinted rules and norms (Bronfenbrenner 1978 ). Analysing the composition of these ecological systems as well as interactions between and within these systems and individual factors was regarded as crucial in order to understand and explain a developmental outcome. The requirement for ecological research was to include at least two different ecological systems in the analysis to understand a particular developmental outcome (Bronfenbrenner 1975 ). In addition, Bronfenbrenner also emphasized ecological transitions in his early texts, i.e. shifts from one ecological context to another that every person undergoes throughout life (Bronfenbrenner 1979 ), such as starting school, getting a sibling, marriage, divorce, getting a new teacher, moving, etc. Investigating the characteristics, qualities and impact of the ecological transitions an individual goes through was also proposed by Bronfenbrenner ( 1978 ) as an important part of ecological research.

Phase 2 (1980–mid-1990s)—adding biology and chronosystem into the ecological framework

During this period, Bronfenbrenner further developed ideas about how individual characteristics interplay with context. In a paper from 1994 about the relation between nature and nurture, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci state that genetic material is not finished traits, but interacts with environmental experiences in determining developmental outcomes. According to them (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994 ) human development involves interaction between the biological and psychological person and his/her environments, and the realization of human potential requires an intervening mechanism that connects the inner with the outer in a two-way process occurring over time.

During this phase, Bronfenbrenner put more emphasis on the close and reciprocal face-to-face interactions with the child’s immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994 ). This was later referred to as “proximal processes”—a concept that was fully developed in phase 3 (see below). During this phase, Bronfenbrenner also developed his thinking about time by adding “chronosystems” to his ecological model. Although Bronfenbrenner mentioned time already in his book from 1979, the concept of chronosystem was not added until this second phase. By adding chronosystems, Bronfenbrenner wanted to take into account changes over time, not only within the person but also in the environments in which that person is found, to investigate how these changes may affect a person’s developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner 1986 ). This could entail investigating how changes in a parent’s work status (part-time, full-time, etc.) over time during a child’s school ages could affect patterns of parent–child communication, and how these patterns in turn could influence the child’s achievement and social behaviour in school (Bronfenbrenner 1986 ).

Phase 3 (mid-1990s–2006)—a Process–Person–Context–Time (PPCT) model

During this final phase, Bronfenbrenner finalized his theory by developing his thinking about “proximal processes”, now referred to as the “engine of development”. Proximal processes involved reciprocal interaction between the developing individual and other (significant) persons, objects and symbols in his/her immediate environment, and these processes could involve activities between parents and child and child and child, such as playing, reading and learning new skills (Bronfenbrenner 1995 ). Proximal processes were viewed as the most powerful predictor of human development and Bronfenbrenner wanted to show how individual characteristics, together with aspects of the environment, influence proximal processes (Rosa and Tudge 2013 ). In specifying the nature, operation and developmental effects of proximal processes, Bronfenbrenner “re-conceptualized” the microsystem. According to him, proximal processes operate within microsystems and involve interaction with three features of the immediate environment: persons, objects and symbols. Persons were further referred to as “significant others” by adopting Mead’s terminology (Bronfenbrenner 1995 ). In further trying to rule out why different developmental outcomes vary between individuals, Bronfenbrenner and his colleagues (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994 ; Bronfenbrenner 1995 ; Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000 ) developed this hypothesis into a Process–Person–Context–Time model (PPCT), and the model was developed to guide how bioecological research best could be conducted (Rosa and Tudge 2013 ). Considering Process would imply assessment of regularly occurring activities and interactions with significant persons, objects and symbols in the developing individual’s lives. Accounting for Person would require analysing how individual characteristics influence proximal processes, such as assessing how age, gender, temperament, intelligence, etc. influence these activities and interactions. Context was described as involving four interrelated systems: microsystem (the immediate environment where the developing person engages in activities and interactions, i.e. where proximal processes occur), mesosystem (interrelations among several microsystems in which that person is situated), exosystems (contexts having an indirect influence on the person) and finally, macrosystem (contexts with a shared belief system). Adding Context could thus imply evaluating the influences of different exosystems (such as parent’s work or the mass media) and/or different macrosystems (such as values within cultural groups) on the proximal processes of interest. Finally, considering aspects of Time would ideally require a longitudinal study with at least two measurement points taking into account the current point of historical time (Tudge et al. 2009 ). Bronfenbrenner never implied that all four elements have to be included in every study, but underlined that studies involving the PPCT model should focus on proximal processes, showing how they are influenced both by characteristics of the developing individual and by the context in which they occur (Tudge et al. 2009 ).

Table  1 shows that the core of analysis of mental health studies applying the earliest concepts (developed in phase 1) of Bronfenbrenner’s theory would be to examine how mental health is determined by mutual influence between individual factors and the ecological systems surrounding an individual/group, as well as interactions between and within these ecological systems. Further, mental health studies applying later concepts (from phase 2) of Bronfenbrenner’s theory would also add chronosystem to the ecology. Finally, studies using the most mature concepts of the theory (developed in phase 3) would focus on proximal processes and applying the PPCT model. As Table  1 shows, it is also clear that the earlier phase of the theory put more emphasis on context, while the later phases put more emphasis on the closer environment.

Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s theory in mental health research

From the 16 reviewed articles, we were unable to identify articles that could be regarded as “purely” using concepts from just one of the identified phases of the theory, as outlined by Rosa and Tudge ( 2013 ). This probably reflects a general unawareness of how Bronfenbrenner’s theory developed over time, a fact also noted by others (Tudge et al. 2009 ; 2016 ). Instead, we found three main ways of using concepts from Bronfenbrenner’s theory within our 16 reviewed papers. One set of papers ( N  = 10) used the concepts of ecological system (of which five also included chronosystem) without investigating interactions between these systems, while another set of papers used the concepts of ecological systems by also investigating interactions within and between these systems ( N  = 4). Another limited set of papers ( N  = 2) utilized the later concepts of proximal processes and the PPCT model. Two of the reviewed articles (Mutumba and Harper 2015 ; Romano et al. 2015 ) used concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory (at least partly) in conjunction with other theoretical frameworks, while the others were based solely on concepts from Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Table  2 summarizes how the theory has been utilized within these three identified groups of articles with regard to the purpose of using Bronfenbrenner’s theory; study designs; concepts utilized; main results; implications for public mental health policy and interventions; and strengths and weaknesses for guiding public mental health policy and practice.

Studies utilizing ecological systems concepts without considering interactions between and within ecological systems

Table  2 illustrates that ten out of 16 reviewed articles utilized ecological systems concepts without clearly considering interactions within and between these different ecological systems. This implies that the majority of our reviewed articles utilize Bronfenbrenner’s theory in a way that was never intended by Bronfenbrenner himself, since even in his earliest writings he underlined the importance of considering interactions within and between ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner 1975 ). These ten studies have in common that they aim to go beyond individual risk factors for understanding various mental health outcomes, since previous studies have mainly focused on personal characteristics without considering the larger surrounding environments. Thus, these studies use concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory for identifying factors at different ecological levels that can explain the development of mental health outcomes in general (Pilgrim and Blum 2012 ; Aston 2014 ), but also more specific mental health related outcomes such as parenting capacity (Grant and Guerin 2014 ), bullying and peer victimization in schools (Hong and Espelage 2012 ; Huang et al. 2013 ; Upton Patton et al. 2013 ), school shootings (Hong et al. 2010 ), and sexual assaults (Campbell et al. 2009 ).

The concepts used in these studies are naturally different ecological systems (micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono) as well as various individual factors. Consequently, the results from these studies end up identifying factors at different ecological levels that are positively and/or negatively associated with the particular mental health outcome in focus. Further, even if the need to consider interactions between and within ecological systems in order to understand mental health outcomes is pointed out in (some of) these studies, this is not explicitly done in the analyses. As an example, Hong and Espelage ( 2012 ) in their literature review identified risk factors at all ecological levels associated with bullying and peer victimization in school, but did not really consider interactions between these different systems beyond bringing up the fact that the associations between parent–youth relationships and bullying may differ for boys and girls. Likewise, Campbell et al. ( 2009 ) point out that the “next step” of developing a model of rape recovery would be to examine interactions across different levels of the social ecology, in order to get a comprehensive understanding. They (Campbell et al. 2009 ) further discuss that the mixed results found in their review regarding the influence of individual characteristics and assault characteristics on the mental health effects of sexual assaults probably are due to unexplored cross-level interactions.

The policy implications that can be drawn from these studies are consequently quite unspecific. When discussing the policy implications from their review of factors associated with school bullying and peer victimization in the People’s Republic of China, Huang et al. ( 2013 ) end up in general recommendations such as the need for (1) considering individual factors (age and gender) by targeting younger children and boys in particular (since these groups are more prone to engage in bullying); (2) setting up parent education for abusive parents ( micro level ); and (3) restricting children’s exposure to media violence ( exo level ). Similarly, Hong et al. ( 2010 ), when discussing the policy implications of how to prevent school shootings, end up with unspecific recommendations such as the need for skill-building programmes for parents and youths on communication and conflict resolution ( micro level ); setting up of arenas where parents and teachers can meet ( meso level ); provision of educational material about the detrimental effects of exposure to media violence ( exo level ); implementing school programmes that address gun violence in school ( macro level ); and educating governments about the relation between social conditions and negative outcomes among immigrants ( chrono level ). Likewise, Yakushko and Chronister ( 2005 ) outline various counselling strategies and interventions at different ecological levels for immigrant women in the US. They suggest the importance of the counsellor valuing immigrant women’s cultural experiences (individual level); assessing changes in women’s family structure (micro level); strengthening existing support networks (meso and exo levels); and informing about laws that prohibit discrimination (macro level). Although these recommendations are relevant and valid, one might assume that these recommendations could have been brought up even without using an ecological theoretical framework. Likewise, Mutumba and Harper ( 2015 ) use an ecological framework to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health diseases for sexual minority youth at different ecological levels. However, in their recommendations for treatment and support, they end up in very broad recommendation such as “developing and enforcing child protection systems”, without even linking these recommendations to the ecological levels where they “belong”.

Thus, even though these studies bring up general suggestions for how to move beyond individual factors to also intervene in the social environment, they do not give any detailed advice on how to prevent a specific mental health outcome for a particular target group. One exception though is Pilgrim and Blum’s ( 2012 ) study about the risk and protective factors for adolescents’ mental and physical health in the English-speaking Caribbean. They identified that girls are more likely to experience internalizing problems, while boys are more likely to have externalizing problems. Therefore, interventions focusing on skills training for emotional regulations, coping skills for managing stress and dietary behaviour may be especially beneficial for girls, while policies advocating for reduced youth access to drugs and weapons and programmes focusing on conflict resolution skills may be especially beneficial for boys. However, beyond this example, studies utilizing early concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory without considering interactions between and within ecological systems tend just to include many factors at various levels in a mental health-risk model, without being able to rule out the complex interactions between these factors. These kind of results easily lead to the conclusion that “everything affects everything”, which is not very helpful for health policy and planning (Grzywacz and Fuqua 2000 ).

Studies utilizing ecological systems concepts by considering interactions within and between systems

Four of the reviewed articles used a more multifaceted ecological analysis by taking into account interactions within and between ecological systems. Beyond identifying factors within different ecological systems (micro, meso, exo and macro) associated with various health outcomes for different groups of people (e.g. based on gender, age, etc.), these articles also aim to analyse interactions between risk factors at different levels and if and how risk factors act in a cumulative manner. Thus, these studies move beyond focusing on isolated variables and contribute to an understanding of the complex interactions between various risk and/or protective factors and their effect on mental health outcomes for different groups of people.

When analysing risk factors for problem behaviour among English and Indian children living in London, Atzaba-Poria et al. ( 2004 ) not only identified risk factors at different ecological levels, but also analysed how much of the risk could be attributed to each of the different ecological levels, as well as cumulative risks of various exposures. They found that regardless of the specific type of risk, the more accumulated risks children experienced, the higher the levels of total problem behaviour. They were also able to detect how different kinds of accumulated risks (emanating from the micro, meso or exo level or individual factors) were associated with different behavioural problems (aggressive behaviour versus anxiety and depression). Likewise, Behnke et al. ( 2011 ) were able to detect how the association between factors at different ecological levels and depressive symptoms differed for girls and boys. Equally, Romano et al. ( 2015 ), in their review of the complex relationship between childhood maltreatment and later academic achievement and mental health, found that the negative consequences of childhood maltreatment seemed to be greater for boys than girls. They also found that some forms of maltreatment (early in life, multiple, neglect) seemed to be especially harmful for academic achievements. Further, McDaniel et al. ( 2012 ) explored interactions between micro and meso level interactions and found that blogging (meso level interactions) positively influenced family relations (micro level interactions) which in turn had a positive effect on maternal well-being. Thus, the positive effects of the mesosystem went through interactions with the microsystem.

The results of these studies show how the influence of different risk factors may vary for different groups and depending on the mental health outcome in focus. Thus, the recommendations for interventions that can be drawn from these studies are in general more specific. One clear example is the study by Atzaba-Poria et al. ( 2004 ). They found that interventions within the microsystem were needed in order to prevent aggressive behaviours among children, while interventions in the exosystems (peer and parental relations) were needed in order to prevent anxious and depressive behaviours among children. Behnke et al.’s study ( 2011 ) further suggests that interventions targeting adolescents’ self-esteem and depressive symptoms need to be tailored differently for boys and girls; targeting neighbourhood factors might have to be especially tailored to meet the needs of boys while targeting societal discrimination has to specifically address the needs of girls. Finally, the review by Romano et al. ( 2015 ) suggests that some forms of child maltreatment—neglect, early and multiple—might be especially important to detect and intervene against in order to promote later academic achievement and mental health. These recommendations can thus be used for tailoring interventions for the specific target group and outcome in focus. Consequently, studies using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system concepts by clearly considering interactions between and within these systems can result in recommendations that are most useful for guiding public mental health policy and practice. However, even if these recommendations might be specific, one needs to acknowledge that the recommendations might not be too easy to implement in practice since they require quite complex societal interventions.

Studies applying later concepts of the theory

We identified only two studies that have utilized the later concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Our review suggests, in line with others (Tudge et al. 2009 ; Tudge et al. 2016 ), that the later version of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is still less utilized in research, including the field of public mental health. Liem et al. ( 2010 ) used longitudinal data from a random sample of young people in Boston, USA, to explore differences in mental health outcomes (depressive symptoms, life satisfaction) between high school dropouts and graduates, while Williams and Nelson-Gardell ( 2012 ) used data from the US National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being to examine factors predicting resilience in sexually abused adolescents. Both these studies used all or some elements from the PPCT model to analyse factors positively and negatively associated with mental health outcomes for different population groups. In these studies, proximal factors are given more “weight” for understanding mental health outcomes, although especially Williams and Nelson-Gardell ( 2012 ) also considered some more distal factors (family SES) that proved to be of equal importance in predicting clinical symptoms in sexually abused adolescents.

Both these studies found that peer and family support, in combination with an individual’s capacity to accept and utilize these resources, is critical for protecting individuals against poor mental health. Thus, these studies underline the importance of a close supporting surrounding environment, and the policy recommendations, therefore, suggest interventions to support and strengthen the parent, peer and child relations. Williams and Nelson-Gardell ( 2012 ) conclude that in order to promote resilience in sexually abused adolescents, interventions focusing on caregiver support and school engagement (proximal processes) or addressing caregiver education or economic assistance (contextual factors) will be the most effective and beneficial.

In summary, these studies give quite detailed guidance on (proximal) factors influencing the particular mental health outcomes in focus. However, given the weights on factors in the immediate, close environment, the recommendations that can be drawn from these studies focus mainly on interventions in the close and immediate environment, while somewhat downgrading actions are needed in the wider environment.

Conclusion—different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s theory; what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?

In summary, our study shows how the majority of mental health studies utilizing Bronfenbrenner’s theory seem to use the early developed ecological system concepts without considering interactions within and between these systems. We do not believe that our review covers all studies within the field of public mental health that utilize Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Still, it is striking that the vast majority of the identified articles use concepts of the theory in a way that was never intended by Bronfenbrenner himself. This finding supports Tudge et al.’s ( 2009 ) conclusion that one common misuse of early versions of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is that it is used to map out contextual and individual factors contributing to an outcome while not analysing mutual interactions between the individual and the context, which was the explicit intention even with the initial version of the theory. Above, we claimed a “pragmatic view of theory”, implying that concepts of a theory could be potentially useful (within a specific context) even if used in a way that was never intended. However, our results show that the recommendations for public mental health policy and practice that can be drawn from these studies are not very useful in that they are too broad and unspecific for suggesting what needs to be done for whom in order to influence a particular mental health outcome. As Stokols ( 1996 , p. 288) puts it, “overly inclusive models are not likely to assist researchers in targeting selected variables for study, or clinicians and policy-makers in determining where, when, and how to intervene”. Thus, we propose that using early concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory without considering interactions within and between different ecological systems might be a less valuable use of the theory within the field of public mental health.

In contrast, our analysis shows that studies utilizing Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system concepts, by clearly considering interactions within and between different ecological systems, can come up with most useful recommendations for public mental health promotion and interventions. These kinds of studies have the potential to rule out the “specific circumstances (e.g. intrapersonal, physical environmental, organizational, cultural) that account for the occurrence and prevalence of particular health problems, and a corresponding analysis of the contextual factors that are likely to influence the effectiveness of health-promotive interventions designed to reduce those problems” (Stokols 1996 , p. 288). These kinds of recommendations may suggest what works for whom to prevent a particular mental health outcome. Therefore, we conclude that studies using early concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory, by considering interactions within and between different ecological systems, can come up with valuable results for guiding public mental health interventions. This use of the theory offers a way to simultaneously focus on intrapersonal and environmental factors and the dynamic interplay between these factors in determining mental health. This way of using early concepts of the theory therefore corresponds very well to the ecological “needs” within public (mental) health for understanding the complexity of public health problems, including social inequality in health and the effects of place on health (McLaren and Hawe 2004 ). In addition, using concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory in this way is well in line with a life course and social determinants of mental health perspective that emphasizes how mental health is shaped not only by individual factors but to a great extent by the social, economical and physical environments in which people live throughout their lives (WHO and Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation 2014 ).

We found only two mental health studies that had utilized the later concepts of proximal processes and the PPCT model of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. This is despite the fact that these concepts were stated to be the most appropriate use of his theory (Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000 ). The lack of studies utilizing these concepts might be due to the fact that this version of the theory is less known and spread in the scientific community, as indicated by Tudge et al. ( 2009 ). Alternatively, there may be a considered decision not to use these later concepts, given their main focus on proximal processes at the expense of environmental factors. Our analysis show that these final concepts do not obviously fit a public health and social determinants of mental health perspective, but might be more suitable within other fields such as psychotherapy where person-centred theories are the most appropriate to understand the structure and development of personality, taking into account dimensions of both temperament and character. The PPCT model is well in line with the ideas of Cloninger et al. ( 1993 ), who describe four dimensions of temperament: novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence, and persistence, which are independently heritable and manifest early in life. Cloninger et al. ( 1993 ) additionally describe three dimensions of character that mature in adulthood and influence personal and social effectiveness by insight learning about self-concepts. Self-concepts vary according to the extent to which a person identifies the self as (1) an autonomous individual, (2) an integral part of humanity, and (3) an integral part of the universe as a whole. Consequently, our study suggests that within the field of public mental health research and practice, the later concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory might not be the most useful. The final version of his theory, with its emphasis on proximal processes and the immediate environment, lacks a clear focus on how the social, economic and cultural environments that people are exposed to influence mental health. The policy implications that can be drawn from the PPCT model thus focus much more on the individual and consequently lean towards individual health promotion models, with an emphasis on changing individual health behaviour without considering the social and organizational context. These models have previously been extensively used in health promotion but have been criticized, not least for their “victim-blaming” ideology (McLeroy et al. 1988 ; Baum 2008 ). We should, however, remember that Bronfenbrenner was a developmental psychologist - a knowledge field with a clear focus on human growth and development in relation to age. Therefore, the latest concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory could be seen as a return from a macro level perspective to a more individual-directed perspective where most developmental psychologists operate. In addition, one must also acknowledge that we were able to find very few articles that had tried to utilize these later, most mature concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. One of our two identified articles (Williams and Nelson-Gardell 2012 ) was also brought up in a recent re-evaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s theory (Tudge et al. 2016 ) where it was evaluated as a study utilizing variables related to the PPCT, but without really testing the theory. The lack of illustrative examples of studies using the PPCT model limits a “fair” assessment of the value of using these concepts to guide public mental health interventions. Indeed, assessing the “influence of individual and contextual characteristics, through their influence on proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner 1995 ), might be an appealing approach also in public mental health research. We believe that further development of an ecological approach in public mental health research would benefit from exploring proximal processes, operating on a more collective level, beyond Bronfenbrenner’s more individually focused approach. Finally, even if we conclude that the PPCT model might not be the most useful version of Bronfenbrenner’s theory within the field of public (mental) health, we do not claim that individual factors do not matter. In fact, equally important for public mental health policy and practice is to consider the variety of personal attributes such as psychological disposition and behavioural patterns that influence mental health (Stokols 1996 ). An ecological perspective that can “integrate the community wide, preventive strategies of public health and epidemiology with the individual-level, therapeutic and curative strategies of medicine” (Stokols 1996 , p. 286) is needed within public mental health. This dual focus both on the surrounding environment and on personal attributes for explaining and promoting mental health can be achieved by utilizing early concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, as long as interactions between and within ecological systems and individual factors are thoroughly investigated and considered.

* Aston, H.J. 2014. An ecological model of mental health promotion for school communities: Adolescent views about mental health promotion in secondary schools in the UK. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 16 (5): 289–307.

Article   Google Scholar  

* Atzaba-Poria, N., A. Pike, and K. Deater-Deckard. 2004. Do risk factors for problem behavior act in a cumulative manner? An examination of ethnic minority and majority children through an ecological perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45 (4): 707–718.

Baum, F. 2008. The new public health . New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

* Behnke, A.O., S.W. Plunkett, T. Sands, and M.Y. Bámaca-Colbert. 2011. The relationship between Latino adolescents perceptions of discrimination, neighborhood risk, and parenting on self-esteem and depressive symptoms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42 (7): 1179–1197.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1975. Reality and research in the ecology of human development. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119 (6): 439–469.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32 (7): 513–531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1978. The social role of the child in ecological perspective. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 7 (1): 4–20.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22 (6): 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U., and S.J. Ceci. 1994. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review 101 (4): 568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1995. Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development , ed. P. Moen, G.H. Elder Jr., and K. Lüscher, 619–647. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bronfenbrenner, U., and G.W. Evans. 2000. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development 9 (1): 115–125.

Bryant, A. 2009. Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10(3), Art. 2. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090325 .

* Campbell, R., E. Dworkin, and Giannina Cabral. 2009. An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 10: 225–246.

Cloninger, C.R., D.M. Syrakic, and T.R. Przybeck. 1993. Psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (12): 975–990.

* Grant, J., and P.B. Guerin. 2014. Applying ecological modelling to parenting for Australian refugee families. Journal of Transcultural Nursing 25: 325–333.

Grzywacz, J.P., and J. Fuqua. 2000. The social ecology of health: Leverage points and linkages. Behavioral Medicine 26 (3): 101–115.

* Hong, J.S., H. Cho, and A.-S. Lee. 2010. Revisiting the Virginia Tech shootings: An ecological systems analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma: International Perspectives on Stress & Coping 15 (6): 561–575.

* Hong, J.S., and D.L. Espelage. 2012. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17: 311–322.

* Huang, H., J.S. Hong, and D.L. Espelage. 2013. Understanding factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies 22: 881–892.

Jané-Llopis, E., M. Barry, C. Hosman, and V. Patel. 2005. Mental health promotion works: A review. Promotion & Education 12 (9): 9–25.

Kendler, K.S. 2008. Explanatory models for psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry 165 (6): 695–702.

Kessler, R.C., et al. 2007. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry 6 (3): 168–176.

Krieger, N. 2001. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: An ecosocial perspective. International Journal of Epidemiology 30: 668–677.

Krieger, N. 2014. Got theory? On the 21st c. CE rise of explicit use of epidemiologic theories of disease distribution: A review and ecosocial analysis. Current Epidemiological Report 1: 45–56.

* Liem, J.H., K. Lustig, and C. Dillon. 2010. Depressive symptoms and life satisfaction among emerging adults: A comparison of high school dropouts and graduates. Journal of Adult Development 17: 33–43.

* McDaniel, B.T., S.M. Coyne, and E.K. Holmes. 2012. New mothers and media use: Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Maternal and Child Health Journal 16: 1509–1517.

McLaren, L., and P. Hawe. 2004. Ecological perspectives in health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 6–14.

McLeroy, K.R., D. Bibeau, A. Steckler, and K. Glanz. 1988. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly 15 (4): 351–377.

* Mutumba, M., and G.W. Harper. 2015. Mental health and support among young key populations: An ecological approach to understanding and intervention. Journal of the International AIDS Society 18 (S1): 19429.

* Pilgrim, N.A., and R. Blum. 2012. Adolescent mental and physical health in the English-speaking Caribbean. Review Panama Salud Publica 32 (1): 62–68.

Richard, L., L. Gauvin, and K. Raine. 2011. Ecological models revisited. Their uses and evolution in health promotion over two decades. Annual Review of Public Health 32: 307–326.

* Romano, E., L. Babchishin, R. Marquis, and S. Fréchette. 2015. Childhood maltreatment and educational outcomes. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 16 (4): 418–437.

Rosa, E.M., and J. Tudge. 2013. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review 5: 243–258.

Stokols, D. 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion 10 (4): 282–298.

Sturgeon, S. 2007. Promoting mental health as an essential aspect of health promotion. Health promotion International 21 (S1): 36–41.

Tudge, J.R.H., I. Mokrova, B.-E. Hatfield, and R.B. Karnik. 2009. Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review 1: 198–210.

Tudge, J.R.H., A. Payir, E. Mercon-Vargas, H. Cao, Y. Liang, J. Li, and L. O’Brien. 2016. Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review 8: 427–445.

* Upton Patton, D., J.S. Hong, A.B. Williams, and P. Allen-Meares. 2013. A review of research on school bullying among African American youth: An ecological systems analysis. Educational Psychology review 25: 245–260.

Whiteford, H.A., L. Degenhardt, J. Rehm, A.M. Baxter, A.J. Ferrari, H.E. Erskine, F.J. Charlson, R.E. Norman, A.D. Flaxman, N. Johns, R. Burstein, C.J.L. Murray, and T. Vos. 2013. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 382: 1575–1586.

* Williams, J., and D. Nelson-Gardell. 2012. Predicting resilience in sexually abused adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect 36: 53–63.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1978. The Alma Ata Declaration . Geneva: WHO.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1986. The Ottawa Charter for health promotion . Geneva: WHO.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice. Geneva: WHO. http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/promoting_mh_2005/en/ . Accessed March 7, 2016.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. Risks to mental health: An overview of vulnerabilities and risk factors. Background paper by WHO secretariat for the development of a comprehensive mental health action plan. Geneva: WHO http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/risks_to_mental_health_EN_27_08_12.pdf?ua=1 . Accessed March 7, 2016.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2013. Mental health action plan 2013–2020 . Geneva: WHO. http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/action_plan/en/ . Accessed March 7, 2016.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. Mental health: Strengthening our response. Fact sheet No. 220. Geneva: WHO. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/ . Accessed March 7, 2016.

World Health Organization (WHO) and Calouste Foundation. 2014. Social determinants of mental health . Geneva: WHO.

* Yakushko, O., and K.M. Chronister. 2005. Immigrant women and counselling: The invisible others. Journal of Counselling & Development 83: 292–298.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas, dnr 259-2012-37.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

Malin Eriksson

Police Education Unit at Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Mehdi Ghazinour

Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Anne Hammarström

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malin Eriksson .

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M. & Hammarström, A. Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?. Soc Theory Health 16 , 414–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6

Download citation

Published : 14 March 2018

Issue Date : November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bronfenbrenner
• Ecological theory
• Mental health
• Public mental health interventions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Influence of Ecological Theory in Child and Youth Care: A Review of the Literature

• Teri Derksen
• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Authors contributing to the International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported license. This licence allows anyone to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear.

Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Rights Granted After Publication

After publication, authors may reuse portions or the full article without obtaining formal permission for inclusion within their thesis or dissertation. 

Permission for these reuses is granted on the following conditions:

• that full acknowledgement is made of the original publication stating the specific material reused [pages, figure numbers, etc.], [Title] by/edited by [Author/editor], [year of publication], reproduced by permission of International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies [link to IJCYFS website];
• In the case of joint-authored works, it is the responsibility of the author to obtain permission from co-authors for the work to be reuse/republished;
• that reuse on personal websites and institutional or subject-based repositories includes a link to the work as published in the International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies; and that the material is not distributed under any kind of Open Access style licences (e.g. Creative Commons) which may affect the Licence between the author and IJCYFS.

Directory of Open Access Journals

EBSCO : Sociology Source Ultimate

Clarivate WoS: Emerging Sources Citation Index

Tweets by @IJCYFS

Doris Kakuru , University of Victoria, CA  - Editor-in-Chief

Jennifer White , University of Victoria, CA - Editor

Alison Gerlach , University of Victoria, CA - Editor

Shemine Gulamhusein , University of Victoria, CA - Editor

Johanne Jean-Pierre , York University, CA - Editor

Editorial Board Members

Natasha Blanchet-Cohen, Concordia U, CA Grant Charles, U of British Columbia, CA Julie Garlen, Carleton U, CA Varda Mann-Feder, Concordia U, CA Hans Skott-Myhre, Brock U, CA Adrian van Breda, U of Johannesburg, SA

Founding Editor

Sibylle Artz, U of Victoria, CA

Recent Guest Editors

Wolfgang Vachon Mattie Walker Audrey Wolfe Angele Smith Nicole Power Mandeep Kaur Mucina Amina Jamal Emmanuel Grupper Alex Schneider Freidhelm Peters Sandrina de Finney Mohammed Abdel Karim Al-Hourani Lilia M. Zaharieva Elizabeth Fast Cathy Richardson Roy Brown Alice Schippers Silke B. Gahleitner

ISSN 1920-7298 (online)

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics

Literary and Critical Theory

• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Ecocriticism

Introduction, general overviews.

• Influences and Origins
• Collections of Essays
• Anthologies
• Medieval and Late Middle English
• Renaissance, Early Modern, and Shakespeare
• Global Perspectives
• The Animal and Nonhuman
• Anthropocene and Climate Change
• Critical Race Studies
• Ecofeminism, Gender, and Queer Studies
• Environmental Justice
• Material Ecocriticism
• Narrative Ecocriticism
• Nature Writing
• Postcolonial Ecocriticism
• Posthumanism
• Ecocritical Futures

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Environmental Ethics

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Postcolonialism and Digital Humanities
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Ecocriticism by Derek Gladwin LAST REVIEWED: 26 July 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0014

Ecocriticism is a broad way for literary and cultural scholars to investigate the global ecological crisis through the intersection of literature, culture, and the physical environment. Ecocriticism originated as an idea called “literary ecology” ( Meeker 1972 , cited under General Overviews ) and was later coined as an “-ism” ( Rueckert 1996 , cited under General Overviews ). Ecocriticism expanded as a widely used literary and cultural theory by the early 1990s with the formation of the Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE) at the Western Literary Association (1992), followed by the launch of the flagship journal ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (cited under Journals ) in 1993, and then later the publication of The Ecocriticism Reader ( Glotfelty and Fromm 1996 , cited under Collections of Essays ). Ecocriticism is often used as a catchall term for any aspect of the humanities (e.g., media, film, philosophy, and history) addressing ecological issues, but it primarily functions as a literary and cultural theory. This is not to say that ecocriticism is confined to literature and culture; scholarship often incorporates science, ethics, politics, philosophy, economics, and aesthetics across institutional and national boundaries ( Clark 2011 , p. 8, cited under General Overviews ). Ecocriticism remains difficult to define. Originally, scholars wanted to employ a literary analysis rooted in a culture of ecological thinking, which would also contain moral and social commitments to activism. As Glotfelty and Fromm 1996 (cited under Collections of Essays ) famously states, “ecocriticism takes an earth-centred approach to literary studies,” rather than an anthropomorphic or human-centered approach (p. xviii). Many refer to ecocriticism synonymously as the study of “literature and the environment” (rooted in literary studies) or “environmental criticism” (interdisciplinary and cultural). Ecocriticism has been divided into “waves” to historicize the movement in a clear trajectory ( Buell 2005 , cited under Ecocritical Futures ). The “first wave” of ecocriticism tended to take a dehistoricized approach to “nature,” often overlooking more political and theoretical dimensions and tending toward a celebratory approach of wilderness and nature writing. Ecocriticism expanded into a “second wave,” offering new ways of approaching literary analysis by, for example, theorizing and deconstructing human-centered scholarship in ecostudies; imperialism and ecological degradation; agency for animals and plants; gender and race as ecological concepts; and problems of scale. The “third wave” advocates for a global understanding of ecocritical practice through issues like global warming; it combines elements from the first and second waves but aims to move beyond Anglo-American prominence. There are currently hundreds of books and thousands of articles and chapters written about ecocriticism.

This section looks at some of the pioneering work in ecocriticism, as well as some of the most read work introducing the subject. Meeker 1972 , presenting comedy and tragedy as ecological concepts, connects literary and environmental studies as a cohesive field of study. As an ethnologist and comparative literature scholar, Meeker helped to pioneer the critical discussion of ecocriticism in what he called “literary ecologies.” Following Meeker, Rueckert 1996 (first published 1978) actually coined the term “ecocriticism,” arguing for a way “to find the grounds upon which the two communities—the human, the natural—can coexist, cooperate, and flourish in the biosphere” (p. 107). Love 1996 builds on the work of Meeker and Rueckert by essentially anticipating the explosion of and need for ecocriticism in just a few years. Ecocriticism as a literary and cultural theory significantly expanded in the 1990s—paralleling other forms of literary and cultural theory, such as postcolonialism and critical race studies—largely due to the publication of Glotfelty and Fromm 1996 (cited under Collections of Essays ), the first edited collection of essays and anthology to introduce a comprehensive critical outline of ecocriticism. Buell 1995 , another critically dense and timely study, outlines the trajectory of American ecocriticism by way of Henry David Thoreau as a central figure. Kerridge and Sammells 1998 (cited under Collections of Essays ), which expanded studies in race and class, as well as ecocritical history, followed both Glotfelty and Fromm 1996 and Buell 1995 . Phillips 2003 offers a skeptical and refreshing critique of ecocriticism amid otherwise quite praiseworthy—bordering on mystical—celebrations of “nature” in the scholarship of the 1990s. Garrard 2012 (first published 2004), along with Coupe 2000 (under Anthologies ) and Armbruster and Wallace 2001 (under Nature Writing ), serves as a political and theoretical turn in ecocriticism because it addresses more of the “second wave” concerns about animals, globality, and apocalypse. Clark 2011 is a contemporary overview that integrates a unified critical history of the “waves,” including nature writing, literary periods, theory, and activism, while it also provides sample readings that deploy specific ecocritical methods to literary texts. Garrard 2014 is the most recent overview volume, with many noteworthy ecocritical scholars; it serves as a somewhat updated version of Glotfelty and Fromm 1996 . (See also Anthologies and Collections of Essays for some other notable overviews.)

Buell, Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Looks back at the history of American nature writing through literary analysis—with Thoreau’s Walden as a “reference point”—to establish a history of environmental perception and imagination. It examines how humanistic thought, particularly through literary nonfiction, can imagine a more ecocentric or “green” way of living. (See also Nature Writing .)

Clark, Timothy. The Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Provides updated introductory material to previous studies. It offers an excellent range of topics, and despite serving as an introduction, it employs incisive analysis of previously overlooked issues in introductory books on ecocriticism, such as posthumanism, violence, and animal studies. It is one of the best contemporary overviews.

Garrard, Greg. Ecocriticism . New York: Routledge, 2012.

Examines a wide range of literary and cultural works. Two notable strengths: (1) it acknowledges the political dimension of ecocriticism; and (2) it explores a range of issues, from animal studies and definitions of “wilderness” and “nature,” to postapocalyptic narratives. It is available as an inexpensive paperback. Originally published in 2004.

Garrard, Greg, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Ecocriticism . New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

One of the most ambitious collections to date, with thirty-four chapters, this book is aimed at both general readers and students, but it also revisits the previous twenty years of ecocriticism to offer contemporary readings from the most prominent names in the field. It is an essential work for ecocritics.

Love, Glen. “Revaluating Nature: Toward an Ecological Criticism.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology . Edited by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 225–240. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1996.

Argues that literary studies must engage with the environmental crisis rather than remaining unresponsive. This essay advocates for revaluing a nature-focused literature away from an “ego-consciousness” to an “eco-consciousness” (p. 232). Originally published in 1990. See also Love’s Practical Ecocriticism: Literature, Biology, and the Environment (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003).

Meeker, Joseph. The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology . New York: Scribner’s, 1972.

One of the founding works of ecocriticism. It spans many centuries—looking at Dante, Shakespeare, and Petrarch, as well as E. O. Wilson—and analyzes comedy and tragedy as two literary forms that reflect forces greater than that of humans. The “comedy of survival” is at its core an ecological concept.

Phillips, Dana. The Truth of Ecology: Nature, Culture, and Literature in America . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195137699.001.0001

One of the more prominent critiques of ecocritical theory, this book challenges neo-Romantic themes explored by ecocritics, many of which Phillips argues support the use of mimesis as a standard way to read environments, instead of looking at more pragmatic approaches.

Rueckert, William. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” In The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology . Edited by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm, 105–123. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1996.

Notable primarily because it was the first publication to use the term “ecocriticism” as an environmentally minded literary analysis that discovers “something about the ecology of literature” (p. 71). Originally published in 1978.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Literary and Critical Theory »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Achebe, Chinua
• Adorno, Theodor
• Aesthetics, Post-Soul
• Affect Studies
• Afrofuturism
• Agamben, Giorgio
• Anzaldúa, Gloria E.
• Apel, Karl-Otto
• Appadurai, Arjun
• Badiou, Alain
• Baudrillard, Jean
• Belsey, Catherine
• Benjamin, Walter
• Bettelheim, Bruno
• Bhabha, Homi K.
• Biopower, Biopolitics and
• Black Atlantic
• Blanchot, Maurice
• Bloom, Harold
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Brecht, Bertolt
• Brooks, Cleanth
• Caputo, John D.
• Chakrabarty, Dipesh
• Conversation Analysis
• Cosmopolitanism
• Creolization/Créolité
• Crip Theory
• Critical Theory
• Cultural Materialism
• de Certeau, Michel
• de Man, Paul
• de Saussure, Ferdinand
• Deconstruction
• Deleuze, Gilles
• Derrida, Jacques
• Dollimore, Jonathan
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Eagleton, Terry
• Eco, Umberto
• Ecocriticism
• English Colonial Discourse and India
• Fanon, Frantz
• Feminism, Transnational
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Freud, Sigmund
• Frye, Northrop
• Genet, Jean
• Girard, René
• Global South
• Goldberg, Jonathan
• Gramsci, Antonio
• Greimas, Algirdas Julien
• Grief and Comparative Literature
• Guattari, Félix
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Haraway, Donna J.
• Hartman, Geoffrey
• Hawkes, Terence
• Hebdige, Dick
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
• Hemispheric Studies
• Hermeneutics
• Hillis-Miller, J.
• Holocaust Literature
• Human Rights and Literature
• Humanitarian Fiction
• Hutcheon, Linda
• Žižek, Slavoj
• Imperial Masculinity
• Irigaray, Luce
• Jameson, Fredric
• JanMohamed, Abdul R.
• Johnson, Barbara
• Kagame, Alexis
• Kolodny, Annette
• Kristeva, Julia
• Lacan, Jacques
• Laclau, Ernesto
• Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe
• Laplanche, Jean
• Leavis, F. R.
• Levinas, Emmanuel
• Levi-Strauss, Claude
• Literature, Dalit
• Lonergan, Bernard
• Lotman, Jurij
• Lukács, Georg
• Lyotard, Jean-François
• Metz, Christian
• Morrison, Toni
• Mouffe, Chantal
• Nancy, Jean-Luc
• Neo-Slave Narratives
• New Historicism
• New Materialism
• Partition Literature
• Peirce, Charles Sanders
• Philosophy of Theater, The
• Postcolonial Theory
• Postmodernism
• Post-Structuralism
• Psychoanalytic Theory
• Queer Medieval
• Queer Theory
• Race and Disability
• Rancière, Jacques
• Ransom, John Crowe
• Reader Response Theory
• Rich, Adrienne
• Richards, I. A.
• Ronell, Avital
• Rosenblatt, Louse
• Said, Edward
• Schleiermacher, Friedrich
• Settler Colonialism
• Socialist/Marxist Feminism
• Stiegler, Bernard
• Structuralism
• Theatre of the Absurd
• Thing Theory
• Tolstoy, Leo
• Tomashevsky, Boris
• Translation
• Transnationalism in Postcolonial and Subaltern Studies
• Virilio, Paul
• Warren, Robert Penn
• White, Hayden
• Wittig, Monique
• World Literature
• Zimmerman, Bonnie
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.80.151.41]
• 185.80.151.41

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory posits that an individual’s development is influenced by a series of interconnected environmental systems, ranging from the immediate surroundings (e.g., family) to broad societal structures (e.g., culture).

These systems include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, each representing different levels of environmental influences on an individual’s growth and behavior.

Key Takeaways

• The theory views child development as a complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment.
• Bronfenbrenner divided the environment into five systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
• The microsystem is the most influential level, encompassing the child’s immediate environment such as family and school.
• The theory has significant implications for educational practice and understanding diverse developmental contexts.

The Five Ecological Systems

Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that the child’s environment is a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next. He organized them in order of how much of an impact they have on a child.

He named these structures the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and the chronosystem.

Because the five systems are interrelated, the influence of one system on a child’s development depends on its relationship with the others.

1. The Microsystem

The microsystem is the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s theory and is the things that have direct contact with the child in their immediate environment.

It includes the child’s most immediate relationships and environments. For example, a child’s parents, siblings, classmates, teachers, and neighbors would be part of their microsystem.

Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional, meaning other people can influence the child in their environment and change other people’s beliefs and actions. The interactions the child has with these people and environments directly impact development.

The child is not just a passive recipient but an active contributor in these bidirectional interactions.

Example: Supportive parents who read to their child and provide educational activities may positively influence cognitive and language skills. Or, children with friends who bully them at school might develop self-esteem issues. 

2. The Mesosystem

The mesosystem is where a person’s individual microsystems do not function independently but are interconnected and assert influence upon one another.

The mesosystem involves interactions between different microsystems in the child’s life. These interactions can have significant impacts on the child’s development.

Example: A child whose parents are actively involved in their school life, such as attending parent-teacher conferences and volunteering for school events, may perform better academically.

This is because the interaction between the family microsystem and the school microsystem (forming the mesosystem) creates a supportive environment for learning.

Another example could be the interaction between a child’s peer group and family. If a child’s friends value academic achievement, this attitude might influence the child’s behavior at home, leading to more time spent on homework and studying.

3. The Exosystem

The exosystem is a component of the ecological systems theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s.

It incorporates other formal and informal social structures such as local governments, friends of the family, and mass media.

While not directly interacting with the child, the exosystem still influences the microsystems. 

Example: A parent’s workplace policies can significantly affect a child’s development. If a company offers flexible working hours or work-from-home options, parents might have more time to spend with their children, positively impacting the child’s emotional development and family relationships.

Another example could be local government decisions. If a city council decides to close down a community center or library due to budget cuts, this could limit a child’s access to educational resources and after-school activities, potentially affecting their academic and social development.

4. The Macrosystem

The macrosystem focuses on how cultural elements affect a child’s development, consisting of cultural ideologies, attitudes, and social conditions that children are immersed in.

Beliefs about gender roles, individualism, family structures, and social issues establish norms and values that permeate a child’s microsystems. 

The macrosystem differs from the previous ecosystems as it does not refer to the specific environments of one developing child but the already established society and culture in which the child is developing.

Example: In a society that highly values individual achievement, children might be encouraged to be more competitive and self-reliant.

This could influence parenting styles in the microsystem, with parents focusing more on personal accomplishments and independence.

Conversely, in a culture that emphasizes collective harmony, children might be raised to prioritize group needs over individual desires.

This could manifest in the microsystem as parents encouraging more cooperative play and shared decision-making among siblings.

5. The Chronosystem

The fifth and final level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is known as the chronosystem.

The chronosystem relates to shifts and transitions over the child’s lifetime. These environmental changes can be predicted, like starting school, or unpredicted, like parental divorce or changing schools when parents relocate for work, which may cause stress.

Aging itself interacts with shifting social expectations over the lifespan within the chronosystem.

How children respond to expected and unexpected life transitions depends on the support of their ecological systems.

Example: The introduction of widespread internet access and social media represents a significant chronosystem change for many children.

This technological shift has altered how children interact with peers, access information, and spend their leisure time, potentially affecting their social skills, cognitive development, and even sleep patterns.

Another example could be a major historical event like a global pandemic.

Children growing up during such a time might experience disruptions in their education (shift to online learning), changes in family dynamics (parents working from home), and altered social interactions (social distancing), all of which can have long-lasting effects on their development.

The Bioecological Model

It is important to note that Bronfenbrenner (1994) later revised his theory and instead named it the ‘Bioecological model’.

Bronfenbrenner became more concerned with the proximal development processes, meaning the enduring and persistent forms of interaction in the immediate environment.

His focus shifted from environmental influences to developmental processes individuals experience over time.

‘…development takes place through the process of progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment.’ ( Bronfenbrenner, 1995 ).

Bronfenbrenner also suggested that to understand the effect of these proximal processes on development, we have to focus on the person, context, and developmental outcome, as these processes vary and affect people differently.

While his original ecological systems theory emphasized the role of environmental systems, his later bioecological model focused more closely on micro-level interactions.

The bioecological shift highlighted reciprocal processes between the actively evolving individual and their immediate settings. This represented an evolution in Bronfenbrenner’s thinking toward a more dynamic developmental process view.

However, the bioecological model still acknowledged the broader environmental systems from his original theory as an important contextual influence on proximal processes.

The bioecological focus on evolving person-environment interactions built upon the foundation of his ecological systems theory while bringing developmental processes to the forefront.

Classroom Application

The Ecological Systems Theory has been used to link psychological and educational theory to early educational curriculums and practice. The developing child is at the center of the theory, and all that occurs within and between the five ecological systems is done to benefit the child in the classroom.

• According to the theory, teachers and parents should maintain good communication with each other and work together to benefit the child and strengthen the development of the ecological systems in educational practice.
• Teachers should also understand the situations their students’ families may be experiencing, including social and economic factors that are part of the various systems.
• According to the theory, if parents and teachers have a good relationship, this should positively shape the child’s development.
• Likewise, the child must be active in their learning, both academically and socially. They must collaborate with their peers and participate in meaningful learning experiences to enable positive development.

There are lots of studies that have investigated the effects of the school environment on students. Below are some examples:

Lippard  et al. (2017) conducted a study to test Bronfenbrenner’s theory. They investigated the teacher-child relationships through teacher reports and classroom observations.

They found that these relationships were significantly related to children’s academic achievement and classroom behavior, suggesting that these relationships are important for children’s development and supports the Ecological Systems Theory.

Wilson et al. (2002) found that creating a positive school environment through a school ethos valuing diversity has a positive effect on students’ relationships within the school. Incorporating this kind of school ethos influences those within the developing child’s ecological systems.

Langford et al. (2014) found that whole-school approaches to the health curriculum can positively improve educational achievement and student well-being. Thus, the development of the students is being affected by the microsystems.

Critical Evaluation

Bronfenbrenner’s model quickly became very appealing and accepted as a useful framework for psychologists, sociologists, and teachers studying child development.

The ecological systems theory is thought to provide a holistic approach that includes all the systems children and their families are involved in, reflecting the dynamic nature of actual family relationships.

Paat (2013) considers how Bronfenbrenner’s theory is useful when it comes to the development of immigrant children. They suggest that immigrant children’s experiences in the various ecological systems are likely to be shaped by their cultural differences.

Understanding these children’s ecology can aid in strengthening social work service delivery for these children.

Limitations

A limitation of the Ecological Systems Theory is that there is limited research examining the mesosystems, mainly the interactions between neighborhoods and the family of the child. Therefore, the extent to which these systems can shape child development is unclear.

Another limitation of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is that it is difficult to empirically test the theory. The studies investigating the ecological systems may establish an effect, but they cannot establish whether the systems directly cause such effects.

Furthermore, this theory can lead to assumptions that those who do not have strong and positive ecological systems lack in development.

Whilst this may be true in some cases, many people can still develop into well-rounded individuals without positive influences from their ecological systems.

For instance, it is not true to say that all people who grow up in poverty-stricken areas of the world will develop negatively. Similarly, if a child’s teachers and parents do not get along, some children may not experience any negative effects if it does not concern them.

As a result, people should try to avoid making broad assumptions about individuals using this theory.

Evolution and Relevance of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory in the 21st Century

Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development has undergone significant evolution since its inception in the 1970s, raising questions about its current relevance and application.

Initially conceptualized as an ecological model focused primarily on contextual influences, it matured into a more sophisticated bioecological model emphasizing the critical role of proximal processes in development.

The mature version of the theory, often referred to as the bioecological model, places proximal processes at its core.

These processes are defined as “enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment” and are considered the primary engines of development.

Central to the mature theory is the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model . This model emphasizes the interplay between four key elements:

• Process: The core proximal processes driving development
• Person: Individual characteristics that influence these processes
• Context: The environmental systems in which development occurs
• Time: The temporal aspect of development, including both individual life course and historical time

Despite these advancements, the theory’s relevance in the 21st century has been a subject of debate. Kelly and Coughlan (2019) found significant links between Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and contemporary frameworks for youth mental health recovery.

Their research suggests that the components of mental health recovery are embedded in an “ecological context of influential relationships,” aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s emphasis on the importance of interconnected environmental systems.

However, the rapid technological advancements of the 21st century have raised questions about how well Bronfenbrenner’s theory accommodates these changes.

The theory’s relevance is further challenged by common misapplications in contemporary research.

Many scholars continue to apply outdated versions or misinterpret key concepts when claiming to use Bronfenbrenner’s theory, as pointed out by other scholars .

These misapplications often involve focusing solely on contextual influences without considering proximal processes, or failing to account for the time dimension in research designs.

Despite these challenges, Bronfenbrenner’s theory remains a valuable framework for understanding human development in the 21st century.

Its comprehensive nature allows for the examination of development in various contexts and across different life stages.

The theory’s emphasis on the interplay between individual characteristics, environmental influences, and temporal factors provides a nuanced approach to understanding the complexities of modern human development.

To maintain its relevance, researchers and practitioners must understand the theory’s evolution and apply it correctly.

This involves recognizing the centrality of proximal processes, considering the role of technology in developmental contexts, and designing studies that capture the dynamic nature of development over time.

By adapting the theory to include modern contexts while maintaining its core principles, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model can continue to provide valuable insights into human development in the 21st century and beyond.

Neo-ecological theory

Navarro & Tudge (2022) proposed the neo-ecological theory, an adaptation of the bioecological theory. Below are their main ideas for updating Bronfenbrenner’s theory to the technological age:

• Virtual microsystems should be added as a new type of microsystem to account for online interactions and activities. Virtual microsystems have unique features compared to physical microsystems, like availability, publicness, and asychnronicity.
• The macrosystem (cultural beliefs, values) is an important influence, as digital technology has enabled youth to participate more in creating youth culture and norms.
• Proximal processes, the engines of development, can now happen through complex interactions with both people and objects/symbols online. So, proximal processes in virtual microsystems need to be considered.

Background On Urie Bronfenbrenner

Urie Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, Russia, in 1917 and experienced turmoil in his home country as a child before immigrating to the United States at age 6.

Witnessing the difficulties faced by children during the unrest and rapid social change in Russia shaped his ideas about how environmental factors can influence child development.

Bronfenbrenner went on to earn a Ph.D. in developmental psychology from the University of Michigan in 1942.

At the time, most child psychology research involved lab experiments with children briefly interacting with strangers.

Bronfenbrenner criticized this approach as lacking ecological validity compared to real-world settings where children live and grow. For example, he cited Mary Ainsworth’s 1970 “Strange Situation” study , which observed infants with caregivers in a laboratory.

Bronfenbrenner argued that these unilateral lab studies failed to account for reciprocal influence between variables or the impact of broader environmental forces.

His work challenged the prevailing views by proposing that multiple aspects of a child’s life interact to influence development.

In the 1970s, drawing on foundations from theories by Vygotsky, Bandura, and others acknowledging environmental impact, Bronfenbrenner articulated his groundbreaking Ecological Systems Theory.

This framework mapped children’s development across layered environmental systems ranging from immediate settings like family to broad cultural values and historical context.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective represented a major shift in developmental psychology by emphasizing the role of environmental systems and broader social structures in human development.

The theory sparked enduring influence across many fields, including psychology, education, and social policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main contribution of bronfenbrenner’s theory.

The Ecological Systems Theory has contributed to our understanding that multiple levels influence an individual’s development rather than just individual traits or characteristics.

Bronfenbrenner contributed to the understanding that parent-child relationships do not occur in a vacuum but are embedded in larger structures.

Ultimately, this theory has contributed to a more holistic understanding of human development, and has influenced fields such as psychology, sociology, and education.

What could happen if a child’s microsystem breaks down?

If a child experiences conflict or neglect within their family, or bullying or rejection by their peers, their microsystem may break down. This can lead to a range of negative outcomes, such as decreased academic achievement, social isolation, and mental health issues.

Additionally, if the microsystem is not providing the necessary support and resources for the child’s development, it can hinder their ability to thrive and reach their full potential.

How can the Ecological System’s Theory explain peer pressure?

The ecological systems theory explains peer pressure as a result of the microsystem (immediate environment) and mesosystem (connections between environments) levels.

Peers provide a sense of belonging and validation in the microsystem, and when they engage in certain behaviors or hold certain beliefs, they may exert pressure on the child to conform. The mesosystem can also influence peer pressure, as conflicting messages and expectations from different environments can create pressure to conform.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood . Child development, 45 (1), 1-5.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development . American psychologist, 32 (7), 513.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective .

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings . Social development, 9 (1), 115-125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualised: A bio-ecological model . Psychological Review, 10 (4), 568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),  Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development  (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education . Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, M., & Coughlan, B. (2019). A theory of youth mental health recovery from a parental perspective . Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24 (2), 161-169.

Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, A. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D. & Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement . Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (4) .

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes . Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 309.

Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018, February). A closer look at teacher–child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool . In Child & Youth Care Forum 47 (1), 1-21.

Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory.  Current Psychology , 1-17.

Paat, Y. F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory . Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23 (8), 954-966.

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology.  Journal of family theory & review ,  5 (4), 243-258.

Rhodes, S. (2013).  Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory  [PDF]. Retrieved from http://uoit.blackboard.com

Tudge, J. R., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development.  Journal of family theory & review ,  1 (4), 198-210.

Wilson, P., Atkinson, M., Hornby, G., Thompson, M., Cooper, M., Hooper, C. M., & Southall, A. (2002). Young minds in our schools-a guide for teachers and others working in schools . Year: YoungMinds (Jan 2004).

Further Information

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Establishing the boundaries and building bridges: a literature review on ecological theory: implications for research into the refugee parenting experience

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Australian Centre for Child Protection Underdale, South Australia, Australia. [email protected]
• PMID: 19933296
• DOI: 10.1177/1367493509347116

Currently an ecological model for conceptualizing and capturing the refugee parenting experience is lacking. After an extensive review of the literature related to the usages of Bronfenbrenner's ecological model of child development, a gap was found in knowledge and research centred on describing the environment of pre-resettlement (i.e. pre-flight, flight, migration, camp) contexts and their impact on refugee parents and carer experiences. The culture of the refugee parenting experience may be characterized by disruptions in and alterations to family structure and organization; values and norms; and gender roles. This paper begins by examining the definition and usages of existing ecological frameworks in the 20th and 21st century. Particular attention is drawn to the gaps in the existing literature and an ecological model is offered. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for practice. The outcomes of this paper suggest the need for practitioners, policymakers and researchers to engage and develop culturally competent, relevant and appropriate interventions (i.e. reconciling differing beliefs and behaviours concerning child-rearing practices; affirming positive parenting practices of these families during engagement protocols and processes; adopting a strengths-based orientation) in the area of child protection whilst at the same time safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children within pre- and post-resettlement contexts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Family pediatrics: report of the Task Force on the Family. Schor EL; American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on the Family. Schor EL, et al. Pediatrics. 2003 Jun;111(6 Pt 2):1541-71. Pediatrics. 2003. PMID: 12777595
• Challenges to parenting in a new culture: Implications for child and family welfare. Lewig K, Arney F, Salveron M. Lewig K, et al. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Aug;33(3):324-32. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.002. Epub 2009 May 27. Eval Program Plann. 2010. PMID: 19552958
• Review of child and adolescent refugee mental health. Lustig SL, Kia-Keating M, Knight WG, Geltman P, Ellis H, Kinzie JD, Keane T, Saxe GN. Lustig SL, et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004 Jan;43(1):24-36. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200401000-00012. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004. PMID: 14691358 Review.
• Social work with Bosnian Muslim refugee children and families: a review of the literature. Snyder CS, May JD, Zulcic NN, Gabbard WJ. Snyder CS, et al. Child Welfare. 2005 Sep-Oct;84(5):607-30. Child Welfare. 2005. PMID: 16435653 Review.
• A critical review of the literature: engendering the discourse of masculinities matter for parenting African refugee men. Williams N. Williams N. Am J Mens Health. 2011 Mar;5(2):104-17. doi: 10.1177/1557988309346055. Epub 2009 Dec 29. Am J Mens Health. 2011. PMID: 20042403 Review.
• Behavioral difficulties and associated factors among the 'lost generation' of Syrian children and adolescents. Alsharif A, Al Habbal O, Gabadian A, El Maamoun R, Al Faraj A, Kamr Aldin T, Haitham Aldammad O, Alkayakhi A, Al Habbal A. Alsharif A, et al. Sci Rep. 2024 Apr 23;14(1):9286. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-59784-z. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38654099 Free PMC article.
• Negative and protective experiences influencing the well-being of refugee children resettling in Germany: a qualitative study. Abdelhamid S, Lindert J, Fischer J, Steinisch M. Abdelhamid S, et al. BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 19;13(4):e067332. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067332. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37076150 Free PMC article.
• Strengthening parental self-efficacy and resilience: A within-subject experimental study with refugee parents of adolescents. Eltanamly H, Leijten P, van Roekel E, Mouton B, Pluess M, Overbeek G. Eltanamly H, et al. Child Dev. 2023 Jan;94(1):187-201. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13848. Epub 2022 Sep 7. Child Dev. 2023. PMID: 36069393 Free PMC article.
• Empowering refugee families in transit: the development of a culturally competent and compassionate training and support package. Papadopoulos I, Lazzarino R, Sakellaraki O, Dadãu V, Apostolara P, Kuckert-Wöstheinrich A, Mauceri M, Kouta C. Papadopoulos I, et al. J Res Nurs. 2022 May;27(3):200-214. doi: 10.1177/17449871211018736. Epub 2021 Nov 15. J Res Nurs. 2022. PMID: 35813174 Free PMC article.
• 'This is not what I want for my children': agency and parenting in Danish asylum centres. Barghadouch A, Skovdal M, Norredam M, Vitus K. Barghadouch A, et al. Eur J Public Health. 2022 Jun 1;32(3):379-383. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac036. Eur J Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35468188 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• MedlinePlus Health Information

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Login to your account

Change password, your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

• This Journal
•   
• Institutional Access

Cookies Notification

Our site uses javascript to enchance its usability. you can disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com to view the full content., select your blocker:, adblock plus instructions.

• Click the AdBlock Plus icon in the extension bar
• Click the blue power button
• Click refresh

Adblock Instructions

• Click the AdBlock icon
• Click "Don't run on pages on this site"

uBlock Origin Instructions

• Click on the uBlock Origin icon in the extension bar
• Click on the big, blue power button
• Refresh the web page

uBlock Instructions

• Click on the uBlock icon in the extension bar

Adguard Instructions

• Click on the Adguard icon in the extension bar
• Click on the toggle next to the "Protection on this website" text

Brave Instructions

• Click on the orange lion icon to the right of the address bar
• Click the toggle on the top right, shifting from "Up" to "Down

Adremover Instructions

• Click on the AdRemover icon in the extension bar
• Click the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
• Click "Exclude"

Adblock Genesis Instructions

• Click on the Adblock Genesis icon in the extension bar
• Click on the button that says "Whitelist Website"

Super Adblocker Instructions

• Click on the Super Adblocker icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
• Click the "Exclude" button on the pop-up

Ultrablock Instructions

• Click on the UltraBlock icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Disable UltraBlock for ‘domain name here’" button

Ad Aware Instructions

• Click on the AdAware icon in the extension bar
• Click on the large orange power button

Ghostery Instructions

• Click on the Ghostery icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Trust Site" button

Firefox Tracking Protection Instructions

• Click on the shield icon on the left side of the address bar
• Click on the toggle that says "Enhanced Tracking protection is ON for this site"

Duck Duck Go Instructions

• Click on the DuckDuckGo icon in the extension bar
• Click on the toggle next to the words "Site Privacy Protection"

Privacy Badger Instructions

• Click on the Privacy Badger icon in the extension bar
• Click on the button that says "Disable Privacy Badger for this site"

Disconnect Instructions

• Click on the Disconnect icon in the extension bar
• Click the button that says "Whitelist Site"

Opera Instructions

• Click on the blue shield icon on the right side of the address bar
• Click the toggle next to "Ads are blocked on this site"

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Ecological economics and dynamic games: a systematic literature review.

• Régis Y. Chenavaz , 
• Stanko Dimitrov , and 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5911-2045

MOSI department, Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, BP 9216, Marseille cedex 913288, France

Search for more papers by this author

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1573-1140

Management Science department, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue, West Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6212-1014

Information, Technology and Innovation department, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200052, P. R. China

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Ecological and environmental economics are inherently dynamic systems requiring dynamic optimization tools. Understanding the interplay between environmental economics, ecological economics, and dynamic games is crucial. This paper presents a systematic literature review on ecological and environmental economics modeled with dynamic games. To be more specific, this systematic literature review analyzes a dataset of 88 peer-reviewed articles from international journals. This study identifies clusters related to resource management, taxation, and policy. It also reveals niche and motor research themes, such as policy, biological invasions, pollution, taxation, abatement, and efficiency, paving the way for future research avenues. By comprehensively examining the literature, this review provides insights into current and future challenges faced by companies, consumers, regulators, and society. It contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between ecological and environmental dynamics and the field of dynamic games in economics.

• Ecological economics
• environmental economics
• dynamic games
• systematic literature review

Recommended

Received 11 February 2024 Revised 26 February 2024 Accepted 9 April 2024 Published: 21 May 2024

Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal)

An excellent researcher from many reputable universities to create Spring Water with the Grand Prize US$ 5.000 starting from 1 st April 2021 - 1 st November 2024. One of the requirements is the Spring Water can be brought anytime, anywhere, everywhere and by many people.

The copyright will belong to Bircu Publisher

Note: Seeking for partners

Contact person :

Email : [email protected]  

Mobile phone : +62 81375313465

Whatsapp : +62 82282201346

Please submit your articles to these emails below! [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]

Sponsoring Membership Partners

Congratulation to:

Prof.Dr. Mult. Mirosław Matyja receives a prestigious award for supporting democratic education in the world from the Companionship Hipolit Cegielski in Poznan in Poland

View My Stats

Editor In Chief

Muhammad Ridwan

Video on First Conference of Pendemic and Education 25 November 2020

Profesor Mirosław Matyja znanym w świecie orędownikiem demokracji bezpośredniej

• Special Issue
• Proofreading
• Subscription
• Sponsorship

Determinants of Child Marriage Using Ecological Theory: A Literature Review

Indonesia is one of the ten countries with the highest prevalence of child marriage in the world. Efforts to prevent the practice of child marriage can be done through intervention on the determinants of child marriage. This article aims to examine and explain the factors that influence child marriage referring to ecological theory. The research method used is a literature review. Article searches were conducted on online journal databases found in Pubmed, Proquest, ScienceDirect, and Willey Online Library with the keyword "determinants of child marriage" and published in 2017-2021. The search results of articles discussing the determinants of child marriage found 13 articles that matched the inclusion criteria. The results of the article examination found that individual education and knowledge factors were part of the microsystem, household welfare factors and the attachment of children's relationships with parents were part of the mesosystem, rural living environment factors, social, cultural, and religious norms as an exosystem, and security factors. state, and regulations or laws as part of the macrosystem. The conclusion obtained is that the problem of child marriage is a multidimensional problem including individual, family, community, and state factors.

Bahriyah, F., Handayani, S., & Astuti Wuri, A. (2021). Pengalaman Pernikahan Dini Di Negara Berkembang: Scoping Review. Journal.Umbjm.Ac.Id, 4(2), 94–105. https://journal.umbjm.ac.id/index.php/midwiferyandreproduction/article/view/709

Bank, W. (2017). Educating Girls, Ending Childs Marriage. The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive-story/2017/08/22/educating-girls-ending-child-marriage

Bappenas. (2017). Ringkasan Metadata Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan (TPB)/ Indikator Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Indonesia. In Kementerian PPN / Bappenas. http://sdgs.bappenas.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Buku_Ringkasan_Metadata_Indikator_TPB.pdf

Bhan, N., Gautsch, L., McDougal, L., Lapsansky, C., Obregon, R., & Raj, A. (2019). Effects of Parent–Child Relationships on Child Marriage of Girls in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam: Evidence From a Prospective Cohort. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(4), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.05.002

BKKBN. (2018). Kuatkan 8 Fungsi Keluarga Untuk Kesejahteraan Indonesia. BKKBN. https://www.bkkbn.go.id/detailpost/kuatkan-8-fungsi-keluarga-untuk-kesejahteraan-indonesia

BPS, Bappenas, UNICEF, & PUSKAPA. (2020). Pencegahan Perkawinan Anak Percepatan yang Tidak Bisa Ditunda. In Badan Pusat Statistik. https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/2851/file/Child-Marriage-Report-2020.pdf

Chari, A. V., Heath, R., Maertens, A., & Fatima, F. (2017). The causal effect of maternal age at marriage on child wellbeing: Evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 127, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.02.002

Ettekal, A. V. J. L. M. (2017). Ecological Systems Theory. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of School Learning (Issue April, pp. 670–674). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385198.n94

Hardianti, R., & Nurwati, N. (2020). Faktor Penyebab Terjadinya Pernikahan Dini Pada Perempuan. Fokus : Jurnal Pekerjaan Sosial, 3(2), 111–120.

Hedo, D. J. P. K. (2020). Kajian Perkawinan Usia Muda di Jawa Timur. PANCANAKA Jurnal Kependudukan, Keluarga, Dan Sumber Daya Manusia, 1(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.37269/pancanaka.v1i2.77

Hernawati, T. (2020). Studi Literature: Faktor - Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pernikahan Dini (Vol. 21, Issue 1). Universitas Bhakti Kencana Bandung.

Irani, M., & Roudsari, R. L. (2019). Reproductive and Sexual Health Consequences of Child Marriage: A Review of literature. Journal of Midwifery & Reproductive Health, 7(1), 1584–1590. https://doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2018.31627.1342

Jamaluddin. (2018). AL Ghazali’s View Regarding to the Witness in Islamic Wedding Ceremony Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal. P. 01-10

Kamal, S. M., & Ulas, E. (2021). Child Marriage and Its Impact On Fertility And Fertility-Related Outcomes In South Asian Countries. International Sociology, 36(3), 362–377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920961316

Kohno, A., Dahlui, M., Nik Farid, N. D., Safii, R., & Nakayama, T. (2020). Why Girls Get Married Early in Sarawak, Malaysia - An Exploratory Qualitative Study. BMC Women’s Health, 20(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00911-z

Kohno, A., Techasrivichien, T., Pilar Suguimoto, S., Dahlui, M., Nik Farid, N. D., & Nakayama, T. (2020). Investigation of The Key Factors That Influence the Girls to Enter Into Child marriage: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence. PLoS ONE, 15(7 July), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235959

Lebni, J. Y., Solhi, M., Azar, F. E. F., & Farahani, F. K. (2020). Qualitative Study of Social Determinants Of Child Marriage In Kurdish Regions Of Iran: Evidence For Health Promotion Interventions. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, January, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp

Liang, M., Simelane, S., Fortuny Fillo, G., Chalasani, S., Weny, K., Salazar Canelos, P., Jenkins, L., Moller, A. B., Chandra-Mouli, V., Say, L., Michielsen, K., Engel, D. M. C., & Snow, R. (2019). The State of Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(6), S3–S15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.015

Linda Fitriani, H. C. (2020). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Pernikahan Dini. Jurnal Insperatif Pendidikan, IX(1), 328–340. http://journal.uin-alauddin.ac.id/index.php/Inspiratif-Pendidikan/article/view/19510

Modak, P. (2019). Determinants of Girl-Child Marriage In High Prevalence States In India. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 20(7), 374–394. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/determinants-girl-child-marriage-high-prevalence/docview/2292913870/se-2?accountid=201395

Muchomba, F. M. (2020). Parents’ Assets and Child Marriage: Are Mother’s Assets More Protective Than Father’s Assets? World Development, 138, 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105226

Mulenga, J., Mulenga, M. C., Bwalya, B. B., & Ngongola-reinke, C. (2018). Too Young To Be Wife! Analysis of The Factors Influencing Child Marriages and Its Influence on The Preferred Number of Children Among Women in Zambia. African Population Studies, 32, 4319–4331. https://doi.org/10.11564/32-2-1210

NU, P. M., & UNICEF. (2020). Manajemen Kebersihan Menstruasi Dan Pencegahan Perkawinan Anak. In Pimpinan Pusat Muslimat NU UNICEF. https://www.pma2020.org/sites/default/files/IDR2-MHM brief-v1-Bahasa Indonesian-2017-05-03.pdf

Onagoruwa, A., & Wodon, Q. (2017). Measuring The Impact Of Child Marriage On Total Fertility: A Study For Fifteen Countries. Journal of Biosocial Science, 50(5), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000542

Paul, P. (2019). Effects of education and poverty on the prevalence of girl child marriage in India: A district–level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 100(February), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.033

Plan International. (2020). COVID-19 And Child Marriage In West And Central Africa. https://plan-international.org/publications/covid-19-child-marriage-west-central-africa?utm_source=IGWG&utm_campaign=53d4e4b7f9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_24_02_34_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a24996ea0a-53d4e4b7f9-60910579&mc_cid=53d4e4b7f9&mc_eid=57b

Plan International. (2021). Perkawinan Bukan Untuk Anak : Potret Perkawinan Anak di 7 Daerah Paska Perubahan UU Perkawinan. https://plan-international.or.id/id/studi-perkawinan-bukan-untuk-anak-potret-perkawinan-anak-di-7-daerah-paska-perubahan-uu-perkawinan/

Rasmussen, B., Maharaj, N., Sheehan, P., & Friedman, H. S. (2019). Evaluating the Employment Benefits of Education and Targeted Interventions to Reduce Child Marriage. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(1), S16–S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.022

Rumble, L., Peterman, A., Irdiana, N., Triyana, M., & Emilie, M. (2018). An Empirical Exploration of Female Child Marriage Determinants in Indonesia. BMC Public Health, 18(407), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5313-0

Seth, R., Bose, V., Qaiyum, Y., Chandrashekhar, R., Kansal, S., Taneja, I., & Seth, T. (2018). Social Determinants of Child Marriage In Rural India. Ochsner Journal, 18(4), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.18.0104

Shakya, H. B., Silverman, J., Barker, K. M., Lapsansky, C., Yore, J., Aliou, S., Brooks, M. I., & Raj, A. (2020). Associations between village-level norms on marital age and marital choice outcomes among adolescent wives in rural Niger. SSM - Population Health, 11(May), 100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100621

Stark, L. (2018). Early Marriage and Cultural Constructions of Adulthood in Two Slums in Dar es Salaam. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 20(8), 888–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1390162

UNICEF. (2018). Child Marriage: Latest Trends and Future Prospects. In Economic and Political Weekly (Vol. 48, Issue 52). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315445809-19

UNICEF. (2021). Child Marriage: Child Marriage Threatens The Lives, Well-Being, And Futures of Girls Around The World. https://www.unicef.org/protection/child-marriage

Wibowo, H. R., Ratnaningsih, M., Goodwin, N. J., Ulum, D. F., & Minnick, E. (2021). One Household, Two Worlds: Differences of Perception Towards Child Marriage Among Adolescent Children And Adults In Indonesia. The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific, 8, 100103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100103

Wodon, Q., Male, C., Nayihouba, A., Onagoruwa, A., Savadogo, A., Yedan, A., Edmeades, J., Kes, A., John, N., Murithi, L., Steinhaus, M., & Petroni, S. (2017). Economic Impacts of child marriage: global synthesis report. Journal of Global Health, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.010903

Yaya, S., Odusina, E. K., & Bishwajit, G. (2019). Prevalence of child marriage and its impact on fertility outcomes in 34 sub-Saharan African countries. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-019-0219-1

Zegeye, B., Olorunsaiye, C. Z., Ahinkorah, B. O., Ameyaw, E. K., Budu, E., Seidu, A. A., & Yaya, S. (2021). Individual/Household and Community-Level Factors Associated with Child Marriage in Mali: Evidence from Demographic and Health Survey. BioMed Research International, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5529375

• There are currently no refbacks.