Evidence‐based policy or policy‐based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target

Sharman, Amelia; Holmes, John

doi:10.1002/eet.543

Cited by 110 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, it is important to note that biofuels for transportation-in our analysis, a subsector of bioenergy-are discussed controversially in the EU. It is likely that future public R&D investments in this field may decline as the 10% biofuels target in transportation is coming under scrutiny [45]. Photovoltaics and wind energy follow with both about half of Bioenergy's R&D budget.…”

Section: Annual Energy Randd Expendituresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financing Innovations for the Renewable Energy Transition in Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Renewable energy sources are vital to achieving Europe's 2030 energy transition goals. Technological innovation, driven by public expenditures on research and development, is a major driver for this change. Thus, an extensive dataset on these expenditures of the European Member States and the European Commission, dating back to the early 1970s, was created. This paper creates predictive scenarios of public investment in renewable energy research and development in Europe based on this historical dataset and current trends. Funding from both, European Member States and the European Commission, between today and 2030 are used in the analysis. The impact on the cumulative knowledge stock is also estimated. Two projection scenarios are presented: (1) business as usual; and (2) an advanced scenario, based on the assumption that the Mission Innovation initiative causes public expenditures to increase in the coming years. Both scenarios are compared to the European 2030 climate and energy framework target sets. Results indicate that Member States in Europe currently tend to fund renewables more than the European Commission, but funding from both sources is expected to increase in the future. Furthermore, the European Commission distributes its funding more equally across the various renewable energy sources than Member States.

show abstract

Section: Annual Energy Randd Expendituresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financing Innovations for the Renewable Energy Transition in Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the translation of evidence from science to policy is rarely linear and decisions are informed through other mechanisms as well as published literature (e.g. Sharman and Holmes, 2010;Wesselink et al, 2013 and references therein), misinformation and misrepresentation within reviews is likely to further undermine evidence-informed decision-making. There is consequently a need to develop ways in which the reliability of individual reviews can be evaluated and compared to determine the value of their contribution to the evidence base prior to their incorporation within the decisionmaking process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

O‘Leary

Kvist

Bayliss

et al. 2016

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N=92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0-30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decisionmakers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base.

show abstract

“…Officials considered that the recursiveness of the Policy Translation model allowed for different scenarios, such as whether evidence contributes to policy development, or whether it is used to justify policies which have already been decided: what is termed 'policy-based evidence' (see for example Sharman and Holmes, 2010). The following quotes underline the role of agency within this process:…”

Section: Ideas Evidence and Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence translation: an exploration of policy makers’ use of evidence

Ingold¹,

Monaghan²

2016

Policy &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper combines the evidence-based policy making and ‘policy as translation’ literatures to illuminate the process by which evidence from home or overseas contexts is incorporated into policy. Drawing upon focus groups with Department for Work and Pensions officials, a conceptual model of ‘evidence translation’ is introduced, comprising five key dimensions which influence how evidence is used in policy: the perceived policy problem, agenda-setting, filtration processes, the policy apparatus and the role of translators. The paper suggests the critical role of ‘evidence translators’ throughout the process and highlights the perceived importance of methodology as an evidence selection mechanism.

show abstract

Evidence‐based policy or policy‐based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target

Cited by 110 publications

References 24 publications

Financing Innovations for the Renewable Energy Transition in Europe

Financing Innovations for the Renewable Energy Transition in Europe

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Evidence translation: an exploration of policy makers’ use of evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About