Successful incorporation of scientific knowledge into environmental policy and decisions is a significant challenge. Although studies on how to bridge the knowledge-action gap have proliferated over the last decade, few have investigated the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for funding bodies to meet this challenge. In this study we present a set of criteria gleaned from interviews with experts across Canada that can be used by funding bodies to evaluate the potential for proposed research to produce actionable knowledge for environmental policy and practice. We also provide recommendations for how funding bodies can design funding calls and foster the skills required to bridge the knowledge-action gap. We interviewed 84 individuals with extensive experience as knowledge users at the science-policy interface who work for environmentally-focused federal and provincial/territorial government bodies and non-governmental organizations. Respondents were asked to describe elements of research proposals that indicate that the resulting research is likely to be useful in a policy context, and what advice they would give to funding bodies to increase the potential impact of sponsored research. Twenty-five individuals also completed a closed-ended survey that followed up on these questions. Research proposals that demonstrated (1) a team with diverse expertise and experience in co-production, (2) a flexible research plan that aligns timelines and spatial scale with policy needs, (3) a clear and demonstrable link to a policy issue, and (4) a detailed and diverse knowledge exchange plan for reaching relevant stakeholders were seen as more promising for producing actionable knowledge. Suggested changes to funding models to enhance utility of funded research included (1) using diverse expertise to adjudicate awards, (2) supporting co-production and interdisciplinary research through longer grant durations and integrated reward structures, and (3) following-up on and rewarding knowledge exchange by conducting impact evaluation. The set of recommendations presented here can guide both funding agencies and research teams who wish to change how applied environmental science is conducted and improve its connection to policy and practice.

E ach year, scientists present their work at conferences and other public forums and use a range of illustrative materials to help communicate the science more effectively. Much of this accompany ing material is then published or posted online. Improving communication is critical because it facilitates collaboration with colleagues, policy makers, and key stakeholders and helps us share our science with broader publics. However, in preparing these supporting materials, one audience group has consistently been forgotten: people with sensory disabilities. People with vision and hearing dis abilities make up 19% of the US population but only 4.5% of all doctoral recipients in 2014 (the most recent reporting year from the NSF). Neglecting the needs of these individuals in public scientific presentations creates a considerable barrier to their participation in the sciences.Many of the core principles of accessibility for presentations are about color choice, proper use of head ings, and clearly labeled figures. These design elements improve experiences for all audiences but are of critical importance to people with sensory disabilities. Given the importance of public presentations for building professional networks and developing new contacts, accessibility benefits the entire scientific community. It removes barriers for presenters and audience members with disabilities, while facilitating communication and connections between scientific peers that last far beyond any single event.Professional scientific societies have made considerable and intentional strides toward inclusivity. However, the primary methods of professional communication and socialization -conference talks, seminars, and poster sessions -often present barriers when steps are not taken to accommodate and engage individuals with sensory disabilities. Small changes, like making presentations and posters available online before talks, are within the purview of societies and conference organizers, and could make an important difference to users of assistive technology such as screen readers.Increasing the engagement and participation of people with sensory disabilities is almost never men tioned in professional communication resources. Indeed, the advice they give sometimes contradicts established guidelines, encouraging presenters to eliminate captions and text on slides or making state ments such as "audiences can read your slides too", which fail to acknowledge the presence of scientists who cannot. These articles can give the impression that disabled scientists aren't a part of the commu nity, don't attend public presentations, don't present their own work, and aren't reading research articles or consuming web resources. As both creators and consumers of presentations, the contribu tions and needs of scientists with disabilities deserve to be addressed.The most important step that individuals can take is simple: "consider accessibility". This can mean evaluating color choice and contrast, using headings and document markup, modifying graphic design ch...