Abstract
Boundary organizations are non-traditional structures that can foster transdisciplinary relationships and help catalyze the exchange of ideas, trust, and ultimately the implementation of scientific evidence into policy. Here, we describe GE-21, a group composed of researchers and public servants interested in promoting biodiversity and ecosystem services in Geneva, Switzerland, as an example of such a structure. GE-21 developed into a de facto social experiment for fostering inter- and transdisciplinary science and promoting nature-based policies. The results of two ecosystem-based projects carried by GE-21 were rapidly adopted into policy. Here, we provide a post-hoc narrative based on reports, interviews, and observations that collectively assess the merits and drawbacks of such structures for mainstreaming ecosystem services.We contend that the following five characteristics of this boundary organization may have facilitated its role as a conduit between academic research and public agencies:1) projects proposing timely, relevant, and novel solutions to policy needs; 2) institutional support for applied interdisciplinary research; 3) a ‘safe space’ to express ideas and develop close relationships over time; 4) availability of high-quality spatial data at a relevant scale, and scientific capacity to treat them; 5) resources dedicated to communication.
Highlights
Our goal in this paper is to evaluate the potential capacity of a novel, inter-institutional governance structure to help mainstream ecosystem services, where mainstreaming is defined as the uptake of messages, information, or concepts into the formal and informal operations of government
Two scientists (L.G. and E.H.) external to GE-21 collaborated with active members to create a documented ‘contribution’ narrative (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2017; Fortuin and Van Koppen, 2016) (one form of a Theory of Change (Mayne, 2008; Patton, 2011)) of the value added of GE-21 in the stra tegic action of mainstreaming ecosystem services into ongoing sciencepolicy dialogues in the Canton of Geneva
We were guided by the following questions: 1. How are ecosystem services captured in the vision of GE-21, and how did it develop over time?
Summary
Science-based arguments for greater nature conservation must compete with other socio-economic factors and power relationships influencing policy (Caceres et al, 2016). The ecosystem services concept has the potential to appeal to a wide group of stakeholders that extend beyond conservation sci entists and practitioners. This begs the question of whether novel governance structures adapted to the participatory and interdisciplinary nature of the ecosystem services concept could poten tially facilitate the uptake of results and messaging based on ecosystem services
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
