Climatic Change

, Volume 156, Issue 1–2, pp 171–190 | Cite as

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

  • Anita WrefordEmail author
  • Suzanne Peace
  • Mark Reed
  • Justyna Bandola-Gill
  • Ragne Low
  • Andrew Cross


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.



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.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2483_MOESM1_ESM.doc (364 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 363 kb)


  1. 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 149:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelle C (2015) Contexualising the tool development process through a knowledge brokering approach: the case of climate change adaptation and agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 51:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N e (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bache I, Flinders M (2004) Multi-level governance. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 13:1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevir M, Richards D (2009) Decentring policy networks: a theoretical agenda. Public Adm 87(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boezeman D, Vink M, Leroy P (2013) The Dutch Delta committee as a boundary organisation. Environ Sci Policy 27:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 11:855–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridgman P, Davis G (2000) Australian policy handbook, 2nd edn. Allen & Unwin, St LeonardsGoogle Scholar
  10. Cairney P, Heikkila T, Wood M (2019) Making policy in a complex world: elements in public policy. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ClimateXChange (2016) ‘A Knowledge Exchange Model for Research, Policy and Practice’
  13. Compston H, Bailey I (eds) (2008) Turning Down the Heat. The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies (Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 102:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 52:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 PolicyGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 38:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportuntities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fazey I et al (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 25:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanger S, Pfenniger S, Dreyfuss M, Patt A (2013) Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg Environ Chang 13:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 18:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hessels LK, van Lente H (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 44:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Bollard Breen B, Towns DR (2015) Conservation, mismatch and the research–implementation gap. Pac Conserv Biol 21:105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch:science advisers as policy-makers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahan D, Braman D, Jenkins-Smith H (2010) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 77Google Scholar
  33. 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):303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kiem AS, Austin EK (2013) Disconnect between science and end-users as a barrier to climate change adaptation. Clim Chang 58:29–41Google Scholar
  35. Lacey J, Howden M, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM (2018) Understanding and managing trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat Clim Chang 8:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979) Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Lomas J (2000) Using “linkage and exchange” to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff 19(3):236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 17:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Public Policy 38(3):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Low R, Miller D, Wreford A, Metzger MJ (2012) Internal review of ClimateXChange. ClimateXChange, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 27:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 32(1):118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):994–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science, policy and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):478–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilsson A, von Borgstede C, Biel A (2004) Willingness to accept climate change strategies: the effect of values and norms. J Environ Psychol 24:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Polity Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100(3):641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker J, Crona B (2012) On being all things to all people: boundary organisations and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):262–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 30:487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press (2009) Fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming. Available from
  52. Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manag 95:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen RM (2018) Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evidence and PolicyGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanderson I (2006) Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy Polit 34:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 PolicyGoogle Scholar
  58. Scottish Government (2015) Rural affairs, food and environment research strategy for 2016–2021. Google Scholar
  59. Stone D (2002) Getting research into policy. Paper presented at global development National Conference, Rio de Janeiro, December 7–10Google Scholar
  60. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AERU, Lincoln University, ChristchurchLincolnNew Zealand
  2. 2.Forest ResearchSurreyUK
  3. 3.Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental SciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastleUK
  4. 4.Science, Technology and Innovation StudiesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.Centre for Energy PolicyUniversity of StrathclydeStrathclydeUK
  6. 6.School of GeoSciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations