This review provides insights into how to evaluate the impact made by knowledge created by CREW activities and whether such impact leads to improved environmental, social and economic outcomes via evidence-based water management. It is widely recognised that impact is more likely to occur when research is co-constructed with research users and is designed with a specific context and use in mind.
This review brings together literature relevant to evaluating projects and programmes that aim to enhance knowledge exchange (KE) between researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders (i.e. anyone with a ‘stake’ in a process or problem). The review aids the development of evaluation procedures to understand the effectiveness of KE projects implemented by CREW.
This review of good practice in evaluating science-policy-practice knowledge exchange was carried out at the start of the project to inform the approach of ESPPI-CREW in year 1 of CREW operation.
Scotland’s centre of expertise connecting water research and policy (CREW) delivers objective and robust research and professional opinion to support the development and implementation of water policy in Scotland. Although the importance of demand-driven science to support policy and practice is increasingly recognised, it is not easy to ensure that information is communicated effectively, to the appropriate end-users, in a suitable format, and at the best time to impact on policy or practice.
The latest River Basin Management Plan (RBMP; Scottish Government, 2015) states that 16% of waterbodies are below good status for water quality, and 246 waterbodies face rural diffuse pressures. Rural diffuse pollution has been identified as the number one water quality issue. Previous water quality monitoring data in Scotland found 7% of water bodies were failing to reach good status for phosphorus (Scottish Government, 2009), although this is based on phosphorus standards which have since been revised. Agriculture contributes a significant proportion of the phosphorus loss.
While flood risk management (FRM) policy in Scotland requires the consideration of natural flood management (NFM), many landowners do not yet support their implementation. Since many measures to support NFM can only be carried out with the support and participation of land-managers, it is particularly important to understand the perceptions of these stakeholders.