Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

ClimateXChange (CXC) was established in 2011 as Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change. It aims to link research and policy, and to be a focal point the Scottish Government can call on for advice on climate change science, mitigation and adaptation actions, and analysis. Bringing together 15 Scottish institutions, CXC is an innovative organisation bridging the science policy gap. We outline CXC’s formation and structure, and use CXC’s experiences to date to highlight features that have been successful in facilitating knowledge exchange as well as on-going challenges. Based on our reflections of CXC, we demonstrate how boundary organisations can (i) meet near-term policy demand for evidence via small-scale, rapid response projects; and (ii) pool expertise from across the research community; whilst (iii) benefiting from longer-term, strategic programmes of research tackling complex, global challenges. We illustrate that while CXC has some unique characteristics, many of the lessons and experiences are applicable to other organisations seeking a greater connection between science and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Made up of six research institutions. At the time of CXC’s creation, this ‘Strategic Research Programme’ amounted to approximately £50 million each year, managed on behalf of the Scottish Government by its Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS).

  2. An interim 42% reduction target for 2020 and an 80% reduction target for 2050.

  3. In addition to CXC, two other centres of expertise were funded: a centre on water issues and a centre on animal disease outbreaks.

  4. Sniffer is a registered charity delivering knowledge-based solutions to resilience and sustainability issues in Scotland.

  5. The Universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, St Andrews, Strathclyde, as well as Heriot Watt University and the Crichton Carbon Centre.

  6. Scotland’s Rural College, Moredun Research Institute, James Hutton Institute, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, and Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland.

  7. The research agency of the Forestry Commission (a non-departmental public body), funded by UK and Scottish Governments.

  8. A ‘sandpit’ is an intensive discussion forum where free thinking is encouraged in order to delve deep into the problems on the agenda and uncover innovative solutions. Sandpits have been used considerably by Research Councils in the UK such as the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council).

  9. Success is gauged through a number of indicators, including influence on policy, capability built and the influence on public discourse on climate change.

  10. See Annual Reports here: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/about-cxc/annual-reports/

  11. All available at http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/reducing-emissions/carbon-benefits-peatland-restoration/. Two further policy briefings are currently in draft circulation within RESAS on the implications of implementing the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement

  12. http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/publications/search-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=2134

  13. Some researchers at the Institutes were funded by CXC for as little as 5% of their time in CXC’s initial 2 years.

  14. Although RESAS continued to provide CXC’s funding.

References

  • Addison PFE, Flander LB, Cook CN (2015) Are we missing the boat? Current uses of long-term biological monitoring data in the evaluation and management of marine protected areas. J Environ Manag 149:148–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adelle C (2015) Contexualising the tool development process through a knowledge brokering approach: the case of climate change adaptation and agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 51:316–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N e (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press

  • Bache I, Flinders M (2004) Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press

  • Bednarek AT, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Meyer R, Colvin RM, Addison PFE, Close SL, Curran K, Faroque M, Goldman E, Hart D, Mannix H, McGreavy B, Parris A, Posner S, Robinson C, Ryan M, Leith P (2018) Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. Sustain Sci 13:1175–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir M, Richards D (2009) Decentring policy networks: a theoretical agenda. Public Adm 87(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boezeman D, Vink M, Leroy P (2013) The Dutch Delta committee as a boundary organisation. Environ Sci Policy 27:162–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschetti F, Cvitanovic C, Fleming A, Fulton E (2016) A call for empirically based guidelines for building trust among stakeholders in environmental sustainability projects. Sustain Sci 11:855–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman P, Davis G (2000) Australian policy handbook, 2nd edn. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney P, Heikkila T, Wood M (2019) Making policy in a complex world: elements in public policy. Cambridge University Press

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, Gustn D, Jäger J, Mitchell R (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ClimateXChange (2014) ClimateXChange Annual Report 2013–2014 https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1240/climatexchange_annual_narrative__report__2013-2014.pdf

  • ClimateXChange (2016) ‘A Knowledge Exchange Model for Research, Policy and Practice’ http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/5814/7384/9064/CXC_KE_Report_spreads.pdf

  • Compston H, Bailey I (eds) (2008) Turning Down the Heat. The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies (Palgrave Macmillan

  • Crilly T, Jashapara A, Ferlie E (2010) Research utilisation & knowledge mobilisation: a scoping review of the literature. Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organization Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO, London

  • Cvitanovic C, Fulton CJ, Wilson SK, van Kerkhoff L, Cripps IL, Muthiga N (2014) Utility of primary scientific literature to environmental managers: an international case study on coral-dominated marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 102:72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Marshall NA (2015) Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists. Mar Policy 52:38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, Norström AV, Reed MS (in press) Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice. Evidence and Policy

  • de Vries JR, Roodbol-Mekkes P, Beunen R, Lokhorst AM, Aarts N (2014) Faking and forcing trust: the performance of trust and distrust in public policy. Land Use Policy 38:282–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportuntities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos J, van Buuren A, van Schie N (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ Sci Pol 14(6):675–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazey I et al (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 25:204–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanger S, Pfenniger S, Dreyfuss M, Patt A (2013) Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg Environ Chang 13:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegger D, Lamers M, van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels LK, van Lente H (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R, Wesselink A (2014) Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Environ Sci Policy 44:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policy-makers ’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(4):239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Bollard Breen B, Towns DR (2015) Conservation, mismatch and the research–implementation gap. Pac Conserv Biol 21:105–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch:science advisers as policy-makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London

  • Kahan D, Braman D, Jenkins-Smith H (2010) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 77

  • Kemp R, Rotmans J (2009) Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sci 42(4):303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiem AS, Austin EK (2013) Disconnect between science and end-users as a barrier to climate change adaptation. Clim Chang 58:29–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey J, Howden M, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM (2018) Understanding and managing trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat Clim Chang 8:22–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979) Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press, New Haven and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas J (2000) Using “linkage and exchange” to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff 19(3):236–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni I, Nicolson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Chang 17:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Public Policy 38(3):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low R, Miller D, Wreford A, Metzger MJ (2012) Internal review of ClimateXChange. ClimateXChange, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiello A, Viegas CV, Frey M, Ribeiro JLD (2013) Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environ Sci Pol 27:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 32(1):118–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):994–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science, policy and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):478–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson A, von Borgstede C, Biel A (2004) Willingness to accept climate change strategies: the effect of values and norms. J Environ Psychol 24:267–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100(3):641–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker J, Crona B (2012) On being all things to all people: boundary organisations and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):262–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesch U, Huitema D, Hisschemöller M (2012) A boundary organization and its changing environment: the Netherlands environmental assessment agency, the MNP. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 30:487–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press (2009) Fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming. Available from http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

  • Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manag 95:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1(1):35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen RM (2018) Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evidence and Policy

  • Sanderson I (2006) Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy Polit 34:115–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkki S, Tinch R, Niemelä J, Heink U, Waylen K, Timaeus J, Young J, Watt A, Neßhöver C, van den Hoven S (2015) Adding ‘iterativity’ to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces. Environ Sci Policy

  • Scottish Government (2015) Rural affairs, food and environment research strategy for 2016–2021. https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/02/8798

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone D (2002) Getting research into policy. Paper presented at global development National Conference, Rio de Janeiro, December 7–10

  • Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anne-Marte Bergseng for her assistance with the figures, Ian Gordon for his comments on an earlier version, and three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions. This work was partly financed through CXC core funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AERU, Lincoln University, Christchurch, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Anita Wreford

  2. Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH, UK

    Suzanne Peace

  3. Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

    Mark Reed

  4. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Justyna Bandola-Gill

  5. Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde, UK

    Ragne Low

  6. School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Andrew Cross

Authors
  1. Anita Wreford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne Peace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justyna Bandola-Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ragne Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrew Cross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Wreford.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 363 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wreford, A., Peace, S., Reed, M. et al. Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation. Climatic Change 156, 171–190 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02483-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02483-w

Search

Navigation