- freely available
Sustainability 2018, 10(8), 2616; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082616
2. Contextualization of Program Theory
4.1. Navigate Toward Specific Points of Leverage
4.2. Allocate Resources in Three Thirds
4.3. Join in External Processes
4.4. Use Research Products to Build Scientific Credibility
4.5. Sustain Co-Learning Throughout Policy Engagement and Implementation
4.6. Tackle Power and Influence
4.7. Invest in, and Monitor, Capacity Enhancement
4.8. Mainstream Higher-Level Goals
4.9. Create Mechanisms for Internal Learning
4.10. Communicate Strategically and Actively
4.11. Explanatory Factors for Successful Science-Policy Engagement
4.12. Challenges in Science-Policy Engagement Efforts
4.13. Quantitative Analysis and Contextualization of Principles
5.1.1. Participatory Approach
5.1.2. Targeted and Demand-Driven Approach
5.2.1. Scientific Credibility
5.2.2. Opportunism and Flexibility
5.3.2. Capacity Building
A Revised and Improved Program Theory
6. Concluding Remarks
Conflicts of Interest
|Case No.||Title and Description|
|1||National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Second National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Sri Lanka)|
Engagement with Sri Lankan Government agencies to support the development of the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and the Second National Communications to UNFCCC.
|2||Agriculture gets recognized in the UNFCCC Durban Agreement (Global)|
Engagement in UNFCCC processes to facilitate agriculture getting into the Durban Agreement.
|3||Low-cost “greenhouses” for horticulture to adapt to climate change and reduce expansion into carbon-rich grasslands (Peru-subnational)|
Work with NGOs and subnational Government agencies to develop and scale out low-cost greenhouses as an adaptation strategy.
|4||Climate-smart banana-coffee intercropping systems supported through policy (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi)|
Science-policy engagement efforts in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi to stimulate the adoption of coffee-banana intercropping systems.
|5||African group of negotiators plays major role in agricultural negotiations in the eighteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP18) to the UNFCCC (Regional—Africa)|
Efforts to build capacity of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) led to African countries making joint submissions to the UNFCCC on agriculture.
|6||Findings from Commission on sustainable agriculture and climate change penetrate diverse policy forums (Global)|
Findings from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture informed Mexico’s climate change law, Kenya’s agriculture act and recommendations on climate change and food security of the Committee on World Food Security.
|7||10-year USD 50 million program focused on crop wild relative collection and pre-breeding for climate change adaptation established (Global)|
Informing a 10-year USD 50 million program focused on crop wild relative collection and pre-breeding for climate change adaptation.
|8||Regional scenarios to guide policies, investments and institutional change (Regional)|
Use of participatory regional scenarios by policy-makers and investors in different regions.
|9||Use of climate and weather data by numerous agencies and farmers (Regional-Africa)|
Use of research monographs on African agriculture and climate Change in West, East and Southern Africa to assist policy-makers, researchers, and NGOs.
|10||Improved rainfall thresholds for index insurance (India-subnational)|
Supporting the efforts of the Agriculture Insurance Company of India to develop improved index-based insurance schemes for various crops that led to protection of more than 50,000 rain-fed farmers from the vagaries of rainfall in one crop season alone.
|11||Linking herders to carbon markets (China-subnational)|
Methodologies for accounting and monitoring grassland carbon sequestration approved by the Chinese Government for domestic carbon trading markets, and by the Verified Carbon Standard for global use.
|12||Beyond the climate science: CCAFS Climate data applied by thousands of non-research users around the world (Global)|
The CCAFS Climate portal used by NGOs, foundations, non-research international/national organizations, donors and governmental institutions to support planning and implementation efforts.
|13||The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopts new methodology for wetlands greenhouse gas inventories (Global)|
Inputs into the IPCC Wetlands Supplement, which is now mandatory for all countries preparing national GHG inventories.
|14||Climate change adaptation strategy adopted by Ethiopian government (Ethiopia)|
The Ethiopian government’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is informed by research outputs.
|15||National adaptation policy adopted in Nicaragua and resulting investments in coffee and cocoa sector (Nicaragua)|
Informing the national adaptation policy in Nicaragua, which leveraged a large-scale International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) investment to support implementation of the policy.
|16||CCAFS informs large-scale global and national investments in food security and climate change (Global)|
Drawing on multiple analyses, informed the allocation of over half a billion USD of international public finance (grants and loans) to food security under climate change, via close collaboration with the agencies.
|17||Cambodian climate change priorities action plan for agriculture (Cambodia)|
The Cambodian Climate Change Priorities Action Plan for Agriculture (USD 147 million) developed in an intensive collaboration with CCAFS over 9 months.
|18||Scaling Climate-Smart Villages (India-subnational)|
Climate-smart villages (CSVs) scaled up by the Indian state of Maharashtra, and considered by Ministry of Panchayati Raj (local level development) in local development plans.
|19||FEDEAAROZ # incorporates climate information in farm extension systems (Colombia-subnational)|
Research findings prompted Colombia’s rice producers’ federation (FEDEAAROZ) to incorporate climate information in farm extension systems. A decision not to plant in Cordoba—informed by seasonal forecasts and big data—prevented 1800 ha of rice crop loss (saving USD 3.5 m in input costs).
|20||Inputs into the IPCC fifth assessment report (Global)|
Inputs into the chapter on food production and food security and summary for policy-makers, has far reaching influence on policy-makers globally, providing the evidence base for informed decision-making.
|21||Shamba Shape Up * and increasing use of CSA information (Regional-East Africa)|
Informing content of popular TV reality show which presents scientific findings to smallholders, with average viewership of 9 million a month.
|22||The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) used in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) global and regional policy analysis (Global)|
Continued collaboration with OECD improves capacity to estimate and analyze climate change impacts.
|23||CIAT/CCAFS science contributes to programming and implementation of about 75 million USD IFAD financing for farmers’ resilience (Uganda, Comoros, Liberia)|
Informing programming and implementation of about USD 75 million IFAD financing for farmers’ resilience.
|24||Climate-Smart Villages scaled out in Haryana (India-subnational)|
In India, the State Government of Haryana launched a program to pilot 500 climate-smart villages in the rice-wheat systems districts of the state.
|25||Scenario-guided policy development in eight countries (Honduras, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Colombia and Ghana)|
Support to formulate a range of agriculture, climate and development policies and plans, in Honduras, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Colombia and Ghana.
|26||The impact of climate information services in Senegal (Senegal)|
Seasonal forecasts transmitted nationwide through 82 rural community radio stations and SMS, potentially reaching 7.4 million rural people across Senegal.
|27||Agriculture is not excluded from the post-2015 UNFCCC agreement in Paris (Global)|
Work with policy and research partners toward ensuring that agriculture was not excluded from the post-2015 UNFCCC agreement announced in Paris in December 2015.
|28||Scaling climate-smart dairy practices (Kenya)|
CCAFS research was used for the dissemination of climate-smart feeding and husbandry practices among 600,000 farmers who are members of six producers’ organizations.
|29||Scientifically-designed index insurance protects a million Maharashtra farmers from increasing extreme rainfall events (India-subnational)|
Development of new region and crop specific rainfall triggers applied to provide rainfall risk cover to crops of almost one million farmers.
|30||CSA Profiles in Kenya drove national/county plans, informed USD 250 million World Bank investment (Kenya)|
Informed the development of the USD 250 million Kenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Project.
|31||330,000 farmers in Honduras and Colombia use tailored seasonal forecasts and recommendations to adapt to climate (Honduras, Colombia)|
Ministries of Agriculture of Honduras and Colombia are reaching-up to 330,000 farmers through nine Local Technical Agro-climatic Committees (LTACs). LTACs provide recommendations generated through local-scientific knowledge exchange using agro-climatic information to support decision-making.
|32||Adoption of digital system for emergency response data collection and decision-making (Costa Rica)|
Support in the adoption of a data collection and analysis system to document USD 57.6 million damage of Hurricane Otto. The new system reduced response time and allowed more in-depth data analysis.
|33||The Climate-Smart Village (CSV) approach inspired a World Bank-funded CSA project (Niger)|
The learning agenda capitalized from AR4D in Kampa Zarma CSV served to inform the design of a USD 111 million World Bank-funded project on climate-smart agriculture in Niger.
|34||Scaling of Climate-Smart Villages across 38 districts of Bihar (India-subnational)|
CSA practices have been mainstreamed in the Government of Bihar’s investment and agricultural development plan targeting CSVs to be implemented across all 38 districts.
- Porter, J.R.; Xie, L.; Challinor, A.J.; Cochrane, K.; Howden, S.M.; Iqbal, M.M.; Lobell, D.B.; Travasso, M.I. Chapter 7: Food Security and Food Production Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2015 in Brief (Sofa); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, B.M.; Thornton, P.K. How Many Farmers in 2030 and How Many Will Adopt Climate Resilient Innovations? CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 195–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. Paris Agreement; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Wollenberg, E.; Richards, M.; Smith, P.; Havlík, P.; Obersteiner, M.; Tubiello, F.N.; Herold, M.; Gerber, P.; Carter, S.; Reisinger, A.; et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3859–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Campbell, B.M.; Beare, D.J.; Bennett, E.M.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jaramillo, F.; Ortiz, R.; Ramankutty, N.; Sayer, J.A.; Shindell, D. Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.; Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howden, S.M.; Soussana, J.-F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Chhetri, N.; Dunlop, M.; Meinke, H. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19691–19696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Knight, A.T.; Cowling, R.M.; Rouget, M.; Balmford, A.; Lombard, A.T.; Campbell, B.M. Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research—Implementation gap. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural innovation to protect the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8345–8348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Thornton, P.K.; Schuetz, T.; Förch, W.; Cramer, L.; Abreu, D.; Vermeulen, S.; Campbell, B.M. Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agric. Syst. 2017, 152, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, W.C.; Tomich, T.P.; van Noordwijk, M.; Guston, D.; Catacutan, D.; Dickson, N.M.; McNie, E. Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4615–4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Ozgediz, S. The CGIAR at 40: Institutional Evolution of the World's Premier Agricultural Research Network; CGIAR Fund Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- McCalla, A.F. The relevance of the CGIAR in a modernizing world: Or has it been reformed ad infinitum into dysfunctionality? In Agriculture and Rural Development in a Globalizing World: Challenges and Opportunities; Pingali, P., Feder, G., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; p. 353. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeulen, S.; Zougmoré, R.; Wollenberg, E.; Thornton, P.; Nelson, G.; Kristjanson, P.; Kinyangi, J.; Jarvis, A.; Hansen, J.; Challinor, A.; et al. Climate change, agriculture and food security: A global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- CCAFS. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security: Full Proposal 2017–2022; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Clayton, H.; Culshaw, F. Science into Policy: Taking Part in the Process; Natural Environment Research Council: Swindon, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McNie, E.C. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface: A Gap Analysis; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kates, R.W.; Clark, W.C.; Corell, R.; Hall, J.M.; Jaeger, C.C.; Lowe, I.; McCarthy, J.J.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Bolin, B.; Dickson, N.M.; et al. Sustainability science. Science 2001, 292, 641–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hering, J.G.; Dzombak, D.A.; Green, S.A.; Luthy, R.G.; Swackhamer, D. Engagement at the science-policy interface. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 11031–11033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van den Hove, S. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 2007, 39, 807–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Enst, W.I. Science-Policy Interfaces for Enriched Environmental Decision-Making: A Research into the Strategies of Boundary Work, Illustrated by Case Studies in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 24 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Stringer, L.C.; Dougill, A.J. Channelling science into policy: Enabling best practices from research on land degradation and sustainable land management in dryland Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rose, D.C.; Brotherton, P.N.M.; Owens, S.; Pryke, T. Honest advocacy for nature: Presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 1703–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, N.; Adger, N.; Attwood, S.; Brown, K.; Crissman, C.; Cvitanovic, C.; De Young, C.; Gooch, M.; James, C.; Jessen, S.; et al. Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sitko, N.J.; Babu, S.C.; Hoffman, B. Practitioner’s Guidebook and Toolkit for Agricultural Policy Reform: The PMCA Approach to Strategic Policy Engagement; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Volume 49. [Google Scholar]
- Edelenbos, J.; van Buuren, A.; van Schie, N. Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluckman, P. The science-policy interface. Science 2016, 353, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarkki, S.; Niemelä, J.; Tinch, R.; van den Hove, S.; Watt, A.; Young, J. Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Sci. Public Policy 2014, 41, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neßhöver, C.; Timaeus, J.; Wittmer, H.; Krieg, A.; Geamana, N.; van den Hove, S.; Young, J.; Watt, A. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2013, 22, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Enst, W.I.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Runhaar, H.A.C. Towards productive science-policy interfaces: A research agenda. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2014, 16, 1450007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talwar, S.; Wiek, A.; Robinson, J. User engagement in sustainability research. Sci. Public Policy 2011, 38, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leroy, P.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Vierssen, W.V. Climate, Science, Society and Politics: Multiple Perspectives on Interactions and Change. In From climate Change to Social Change: Perspectives on Science-Policy Interactions; Driessen, P.P.J., Leroy, P., Vierssen, W.V., Eds.; International Books: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meadowcroft, J. Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007, 9, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegger, D.; Lamers, M.; Van Zeijl-Rozema, A.; Dieperink, C. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 18, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, W.J.; Bellingan, L.; Bellingham, J.R.; Blackstock, J.J.; Bloomfield, R.M.; Bravo, M.; Cadman, V.M.; Cleevely, D.D.; Clements, A.; Cohen, A.S.; et al. A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Steenwerth, K.L.; Hodson, A.K.; Bloom, A.J.; Carter, M.R.; Cattaneo, A.; Chartres, C.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Henry, K.; Hopmans, J.W.; Horwath, W.R.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for action. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, R.; Kokic, P.; Crimp, S.; Martin, P.; Meinke, H.; Howden, S.M.; de Voil, P.; Nidumolu, U. The vulnerability of australian rural communities to climate variability and change: Part II—Integrating impacts with adaptive capacity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogerwerf, A. Reconstructing policy theory. Eval. Program Plan. 1990, 13, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Leeuw, F.L. Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. Am. J. Eval. 2003, 24, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, P.J. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 2008, 14, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proust, K.; Newell, B.; Brown, H.; Capon, A.; Browne, C.; Burton, A.; Dixon, J.; Mu, L.; Zarafu, M. Human health and climate change: Leverage points for adaptation in urban environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 2134–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fullana i Palmer, P.; Puig, R.; Bala, A.; Baquero, G.; Riba, J.; Raugei, M. From life cycle assessment to life cycle management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 458–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager, N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bielak, A.T.; Campbell, A.; Pope, S.; Schaefer, K.; Shaxson, L. From science communication to knowledge brokering: The shift from ‘science push’ to ‘policy pull’. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices; Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., Shi, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 201–226. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeulen, S.; Campbell, B.M. Ten Principles for Effective AR4D Programs; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kristjanson, P.; Reid, R.S.; Dickson, N.; Clark, W.C.; Romney, D.; Puskur, R.; MacMillan, S.; Grace, D. Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 5047–5052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Fazey, I.; Evely, A.C.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Kruijsen, J.; White, P.C.L.; Newsham, A.; Jin, L.; Cortazzi, M.; Phillipson, J.; et al. Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ. Conserv. 2012, 40, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Earl, S.; Carden, F.; Smutylo, T. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action: Logic Model Development Guide; W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Battle Creek, MI, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Harding, A. What is the difference between an impact and an outcome? Impact is the longer term effect of an outcome. In Impact of Social Sciences Blog; London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2014; Volume 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Scoble, R.; Dickson, K.; Hanney, S.; Rodgers, G.J. Institutional strategies for capturing socio-economic impact of academic research. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2010, 32, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Penfield, T.; Baker, M.J.; Scoble, R.; Wykes, M.C. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res. Eval. 2014, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowler, F.J., Jr. Survey Research Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kingsley, G. The Use of Case Studies in R&D Impact Evaluations; Kluwer Academic Publishers: North Andover, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 17–42. [Google Scholar]
- Sarewitz, D.; Pielke, R.A. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegger, D.; Dieperink, C. Toward successful joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: Lessons from six regional projects in The Netherlands. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heink, U.; Marquard, E.; Heubach, K.; Jax, K.; Kugel, C.; Neßhöver, C.; Neumann, R.K.; Paulsch, A.; Tilch, S.; Timaeus, J.; et al. Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 42, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kothari, A.; MacLean, L.; Edwards, N. Increasing capacity for knowledge translation: Understanding how some researchers engage policy makers. Evid. Policy A J. Res. Debate Pract. 2009, 5, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stringer, L.C.; Dougill, A.J.; Fraser, E.; Hubacek, K.; Prell, C.; Reed, M.S. Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: A critical review. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guston, D.H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2001, 26, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, J.; Clark, R. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11, 702–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leeuwis, C.; Klerkx, L.; Schut, M. Reforming the research policy and impact culture in the CGIAR: Integrating science and systemic capacity development. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 16, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines, A.; Kuruvilla, S.; Borchert, M. Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health. Bull. World Health Organ. 2004, 82, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Nilsen, P.; Ståhl, C.; Roback, K.; Cairney, P. Never the twain shall meet?—A comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2013, 8, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Silva, P.U.K.; Vance, C.K. Assessing the societal impact of scientific research. In Scientific Scholarly Communication: The Changing Landscape; De Silva, P.U.K., Vance, C.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 117–132. [Google Scholar]
|1. Navigate toward specific points of leverage||Points of leverage are areas where a small intervention can lead to large changes . Weak leverage points have limited ability to drive change , therefore it is essential to identify leverage points which are tangible and have the ability to drive change. In the context of complexity associated with confronting wicked problems such as climate change, this principle proposes that science-policy engagement efforts should navigate toward points of leverage, which are likely to lead to change .|
|2. Allocate resources in three thirds||This principle proposes that effective AR4D programs should invest a third of resources on research, a third on engaging with next users and a third on improving the capacity of next users for uptake of research . This principle is derived from lessons learned from life cycle assessment studies . This does not mean strict allocation of financial resources in thirds, but adopting an approach which puts emphasis on partnerships and capacity building, in addition to generating sound science .|
|3. Join in external processes||This principle proposes that rather than creating new processes and events, science-policy engagement efforts should join existing processes of next users wherever possible . This includes boundary spanning work  between researchers and user groups, to define products and to foster dialogue.|
|4. Use research products to build scientific credibility||Enhancing credibility, i.e., scientific adequacy of technical information, is key to successful science-policy engagement . Cash et al. (2003) found that in addition to credibility, salience and legitimacy are important factors, in order to respond to the needs of next users, and to ensure that the process is fair and respectful of stakeholders . This principle proposes that researchers should use a strategy based on high impact publications, research and open access policies, to enhance their scientific credibility and thus support science-policy engagement processes .|
|5. Sustain co-learning throughout policy engagement and implementation||Co-learning processes facilitate knowledge exchange, coproduction and learning in the science-policy engagement process [48,50]. This principle proposes that through co-learning processes research products should be tailored and translated to suit needs of next users.|
|6. Tackle power and influence||Power relations, including the status of individuals involved in the engagement process may affect the outcomes of the process [41,54]. This is especially true in the case of the agricultural sector, where knowledge is highly politicized  and researchers need to navigate power relations. Also, in the context of power and influence, the United Nations Environment Program has called for gender equality in all science-policy activities, to avoid aggravating existing inequalities . This principle proposes that researchers should be mindful of gender and other power differences .|
|7. Invest in and monitor capacity enhancement||Strengthening the capacity of farmers and agricultural sector actors such as extension services is a priority to enable farming communities to cope with climate change impacts . Capacity enhancement efforts can both help next users better articulate demand, and to effectively translate knowledge into actions at the field level . In this context, AR4D has a role to play, and the principle proposes that research efforts should focus on enhancing the capacity of next users and research partners and measuring progress .|
|8. Mainstream higher-level goals||AR4D efforts integrate research activities and outputs with an impact pathway leading to development outcomes, and international development partners pursue this pathway to realize impacts for higher-level goals such as improved livelihoods and food security . This principle proposes mainstreaming higher-level goals of poverty reduction, gender equity, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and improved nutrition in policy engagement efforts, to help focus on development outcomes .|
|9. Create mechanisms for internal learning||Mechanisms for internal learning, such as a theory of change approach, can help balance research efforts with the priorities of next users . This principle proposes that researchers should include processes to review the theory of change, re-align the strategy for impact, and seize emerging opportunities in order to be successful .|
|10. Communicate strategically and actively||Effective communication between researchers and next users is a key boundary management function , and the emphasis of communication efforts has shifted from generic approaches to targeted ones which facilitate knowledge brokering . This principle proposes that research efforts should develop communications strategies to link closely with the impact pathways identified.|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).