Meeting societal challenges
Status, impact and future research directions in Environment,
Climate, Building & Planning and Agriculture research in Sweden
Preface
The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
has been commissioned to analyse Swedish research by the Swedish government. Formas
should, according to the commission, focus on its three primary areas: Environment and
Nature, Agricultural Sciences/Animals and Food and Spatial Planning. In order to fulfil the
commission Formas has produced several background reports.
This background report focus on three issues within Formas’ areas of responsibility:
•
•
•
Societal challenges.
Present research in Sweden.
Societal impact of research.
An expert group that consisted of scientist and users was asked to analyse the issues. This
background report is the result of that analysis. The expert group is responsible for the
conclusions and recommendations in this report.
Formas would like to thank the expert group for their work and for an interesting and
relevant report.
Stockholm October 2015
Ingrid Petersson
2
Table of contents
Preface
2
Table of contents
3
1 Introduction
4
2 The Four Research Areas
8
2.1 Environmental Research
8
2.1.1 Future research directions
2.1.2 Environmental research at present
2.1.3 Impact
2.1.4 SWOT analysis
8
9
12
16
2.2 Climate research
17
2.2.1 Future research directions
2.2.2 Climate research at present
2.2.3 Impact
2.2.4 SWOT analysis
17
18
19
22
2.3 Building and Planning research
23
2.3.1 Future research directions
2.3.2 Building and planning research at present
2.3.3 Impact
2.3.4 SWOT analysis
2.4 Agricultural research
23
24
25
27
28
2.4.1 Future research directions
2.4.2 Agricultural research at present
2.4.3 Impact
2.4.4 SWOT analysis
28
30
31
34
3 Conclusions
35
References
39
Annex 1. Guidelines for the work of the expert group
41
Annex 2. List of the 11 Swedish universities providing material for the report
50
3
1 Introduction
During 2014 and 2015 the Swedish Government commissioned Formas to analyze various
aspects of Environmental, Climate, Building & Planning, and Agricultural research. In this
context Environmental Research includes research on environmental effects and toxicology,
nature conservation, effects of climate change on the environment, ecology, natural
resources and recycling of materials. Climate Research includes meteorology, climate and
climate change simulations, sources of climate change and cross-disciplinary research
involving environment, waste, pollution, sustainability analysis, greenhouse gasses, effects of
climate change on, and climate adaptation of, the built and natural environment, agriculture
and fishery. Building and Planning research includes geotechnical engineering, construction
materials, structural engineering, building design, building physics and indoor climate, urban,
regional and transport planning, and architecture and architectural engineering. Agricultural
research includes research on agriculture, animal husbandry, veterinary medicine, forestry,
food science, fishery and aquaculture.
This report is one of several compiled to fulfil the Swedish Government commissions:
•
•
•
Uppdrag att inkomma med analyser som ger underlag till regeringens
forskningspolitik, Miljö- och energidepartementet (Commission to submit analyses
to inform government research policy, Ministry of the Environment and Energy),
M2015/1170/Mm
Uppdrag att göra en analys av finansieringen av forskningen inom Formas
ansvarsområden, Miljödepartementet (Commission to analyze research funding
within Formas’ areas of responsibility, Ministry of the Environment),
M2014/1847/Mm
Formas ska redovisa klimatforskningen enligt det förslag som Formas och Statens
energimyndighet har redovisat i rapporten 31 maj 2013, Regleringsbrev för Formas
2015 (Formas is to account for climate research according to the proposal made by
Formas and the Swedish Energy Agency, Appropriation direction for Formas 2015),
M2014/2972/S, M2014/2138/Mnn.
In order to guide the work, four questions were asked to the expert group:
1. What future research directions should be followed in order for the research
communities to meet the most important societal challenges within the four areas?
2. What is the current state of Swedish Agriculture, Environment, Building & Planning
and Climate research in Sweden?
3. What societal impact has Swedish research had in the four areas?
4. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of Agriculture,
Environment, Building & Planning and Climate research in Sweden?
The report first identifies societal challenges for which research in Environment, Climate,
Building & Planning, and Agriculture is particularly important. It should be stressed that this
4
part of the report constitutes the opinion of the expert group rather than a compilation and
assessment of the underlying material.
Secondly, the report describes the status – within the scope of societal challenges – of the
research areas in terms of the funding available from various programs and agencies, as well
as the potential ability of the research communities to respond to these challenges and
opportunities.
Thirdly, the track record of societal impact of research in Environment, Climate, Building &
Planning, and Agriculture is discussed on the basis of a series of case studies.
It should be stressed that the research communities and their performance and track record
in terms of societal impact has been evaluated primarily within the framework in which
funding has been available in the past and not only with reference to the challenges identified
by the expert group.
Finally a SWOT analysis of each of the research areas is presented.
This report is the product of work carried out by an expert group led by Professor Henrik
Stang, Danish Technical University (DTU). The group contained both users and scientists in
the four areas, see Table 1. The work within each research area was organized by four
rapporteurs leading the sub-groups.
Table 1. Members of the evaluation panel.
Name of expert
Øystein Johnsen
(Rapporteur)
Organisation
Norwegian University of Life
Sciences
Country
Norway
Area of expertise
Environmental Sciences
Hanne Bach
Danish Centre for Environment
and Energy
Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Danish Meteorological Institute
Denmark
Environmental Sciences
Sweden
Environmental Sciences
Denmark
Climate Sciences
Norway
Climate Sciences
Sweden
Climate Sciences
Charlotte Cederbom
Centre for International Climate
and Environmental Research
Oslo
County Administrative Board
Östergötland
Swedish Geotechnical Institute
Sweden
Climate Sciences
Jari Niemälä
University of Helsinki
Finland
Agricultural Sciences
Åsa Söderberg
Katrine Krogh
Andersen
Guri Bang
(Rapporteur)
Anna Bratt
5
Kjell Ivarsson
The Federation of Swedish
Farmers
Swedish Forest Agency
Sweden
Agricultural Sciences
Sweden
Agricultural Sciences
Henrik Stang
DTU Civil Engineering
Denmark
Torill Nyseth
(Rapporteur)
University of Tromsø
Norway
Building and Planning
Sciences
Building and Planning
Sciences
Jan Byfors
Nordic Construction Company
Sweden
Åsa Dahlin
City of Stockholm
Sweden
Hillevi Eriksson
(Rapporteur)
Building and Planning
Sciences
Building and Planning
Sciences
Prior to the work of the expert group, Formas had collected data, both quantitative and
qualitative, on Environmental, Climate, Building & Planning, and Agricultural research.
Eleven universities, constituting Formas´ largest grant receivers, were asked to provide data
on publications and funding for research in the four research areas. In addition, the
universities were invited to provide case studies of research work with particular emphasis on
the societal impact of the research results. These case studies provided a substantial part of
the background for the group responses to questions three and four (see above). In total 84
case studies were provided by the universities. Some of the case studies were to a certain
extent cross-disciplinary in nature and substance and a number of the cases were concerned
with several of the societal challenges identified by the expert sub-groups. Thus, a number of
cases could be associated with several of the research areas represented in the present study.
The cases, however, were all associated with one group only, resulting in 33, 15, 17 and 18
case studies associated primarily with Environmental, Climate, Building & Planning, and
Agricultural research, respectively.
The work of the expert group was divided in three parts. First, the expert group received
guidelines for their work (see Annex 1). Each expert was asked, individually, to identify
significant societal challenges for which their field of expertise is particularly relevant and
further to evaluate the case studies assigned to their area in terms of reach and significance of
the societal impact. Finally, the experts were asked to give each case a score between 1
(lowest) and 5 (highest) to evaluate overall impact. All experts reported their work to the
rapporteur in charge of the sub-group.
Secondly, a workshop was arranged in Stockholm 16 – 17 June 2015. In preparation for the
workshop all experts were asked to read all cases and the rapporteurs complied the input
from the sub-groups. The workshop was based on the individual reports and a discussion on
societal challenges and how to connect them to current and future research goals. The
evaluation of the impact of the case studies was discussed both in smaller groups and by the
6
whole expert group. The rapporteurs summarized the discussion. On the second day SWOTanalyses for the four research areas were made and discussed.
The third part, report writing, began on 20 June 2105 and was completed on 15 September
2015. Each group summarized their findings from the workshop and the report was
compiled by Henrik Stang.
The report is organized such that the results from each of the sub-groups are reported in
separate sections in Chapter 2, while overall conclusions are presented in Chapter 3.
A list of the 11 universities that provided material for the present investigation is given in
Annex 2.
The reference list contains a complete list of the data material provided for the group.
Furthermore, the reference list contains documents and reports with direct or indirect
bearing on the work carried out – policy and strategy documents, as well as assessment
reports. These documents were either provided by Formas as background documents or
provided and used by the expert group. The documents fall in two categories: unpublished
(supplied only to the expert group) and published.
7
2 The Four Research Areas
2.1 Environmental Research
2.1.1 Future research directions
The increasing consumption pattern of the rapidly growing global population leads to an
enormous pressure on global ecosystems. Consequently the members of the UN Conference
on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012 agreed to negotiate a new set of global
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to guide the path of sustainable development in the
world after 2015. We decided to structure our input according to the four most important
transformational challenges listed in the report “Universal Sustainable Development Goals.
Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries” by D. Osborn, A.
Cutter and F. Ullah, with a few modifications; expanding the focus on marine resources to
include land-based natural resources to highlight the linkages between land and oceans, with
the four main challenges being (i) Climate change and its impacts, (ii) Accessibility to
affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy, (iii) Transition to sustainable
consumption and production patterns and (iv) Pressure on natural environment, resources
and ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.
Climate Change and its Impacts
Sweden aims to become climate neutral by 2050. This means that the emission of
greenhouse gases has to be reduced dramatically, and the industrial and transport sector
must be based on renewable energy to a large degree. It will become increasingly important
to increase carbon storage, while increasing wood and biomass production in the forest.
Likewise, the development of green and blue-green infrastructure for solving
environmental issues, e.g. flood prevention, while at the same time improving nature and
people’s well-being, will be imperative. Effects of climate changes on ecosystems ,
including adaptive traits in domestic plants and trees, soil erosion and compaction in agro
systems, as well as development of sustainable forestry and agronomic systems , should
be understood and implemented.
Accessibility to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy
There is an urgent need to find effective technological solutions that can reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in all aspects of energy conversion. Renewable energy sources should
replace the use of fossil sources. We need to develop biorefineries to find efficient and noncostly methods to convert wood and waste into valuable products, including bioethanol,
biodiesel and biogas. There is a need for an integration of approaches, solutions and
policies in the nexus between the use of water, energy and food in supporting an efficient
and sustainable utilization of natural resources. Conflicting interests in using natural
resources are prone to arise, and we recommend that research is done aimed at providing
solutions to such dilemmas. Research in efficient energy conversion is required with a
focus both on technologies and on the behavioural patterns of the end users.
8
Transition to sustainable consumption and production patterns
An important societal challenge is the transition into a society with sustainable consumption
patterns, without sacrificing quality of life. This implies not only transformation into more
sustainable production and waste processing , but also an actual decrease in consumption
volumes. There is a need to develop collaborative consumption models including new
ways regarding how to share, borrow, rent etc. The research in the area should include best
practices, socially acceptable and feasible models and necessary legislation and regulatory
instruments. Globally, there is a need to perform research aiming towards efficient food
production , food security and safety to feed an increasing human population. It is
important to know how to maintain arable land for the production of vegetative food and
feed. The demand for water in agriculture will increase dramatically, and research aimed
towards more efficient water use , for reduction in waste of agriculture products and
food waste is important. So is research for maintaining and managing the reservoirs of
clean drinking water.
Pressure on natural environments, resources and ecosystems and loss of biodiversity
Nature and biodiversity are the backbone of our natural resources and taking care of nature
is a key task for society in order not to impair the living conditions for future generations. An
increasing pressure on resources calls for alternative solutions where multiple purposes is
a key concept. The idea is that the approaches will not only solve the considered problems,
but also increase nature values e.g. by ecosystem restoration and other ways of enhancement.
There is a need to reduce pollution pressures on the natural ecosystems using holistic
approaches, considering all sources, and linking land and oceans. Improving the
understanding of ecosystem dynamics, the ecology and regulatory mechanisms in
the natural systems on land and in water is vital.
New solutions, technologies and products, and the new ways of using known products and
technologies have revealed unwanted impacts. Thus, there is a need for research on the
effects of these emerging environmental issues, including e.g. chemicals, nano-particles,
marine waste etc.
Since research in this area is a necessary basis for policymaking it is crucial that researchers in
this field interact with the governmental agencies responsible for environmental monitoring.
Finding ways to promote common use of protected areas is important. We should know
how to facilitate recreational activities without increasing the environmental pressure and
jeopardizing the protected values.
2.1.2 Environmental research at present
Patel, Jagger and Nemoto (2015) concluded that more than 70% of Swedish Government
research funding in 2013 was distributed to basic research (defined as advancement of
knowledge). Furthermore, they also concluded that the Swedish research funding system
favours generic over thematic research. Funding targeted to thematic areas (25% in 2013)
may fundamentally address the societal challenge more directly. By allocating more funding
to thematic research linked to societal challenges, the incentives will promote the interplay
9
between the research community and stakeholders. We support the idea of finding crossdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches, and further present results in ways that
support decision-making.
Active cooperation with other countries is a success factor that may increase Sweden’s
research impact globally. As an example, the Swedish research society has participated
actively in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process and has made
important contributions in connection to this. The relatively new platform
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) offers similar
opportunities to contribute and learn at the same time. Thus, participation in global
platforms is a way to increase the momentum of resources allocated to environmental
research in Sweden.
2.1.2.1 Funding
The relative proportion of funding targeted towards environmental effects and
environmental toxicology is mainly covered by Formas but several of the issues identified
above related to this research area are targeted by other programs such as Vinnova and
Mistra. This includes e.g. topics such as green innovation and technology and reduction in
environmental impacts.
In the area targeted towards environment and nature conservation, biodiversity and naturerelated research seems to be covered mainly by the Swedish research council and Formas,
which mainly includes this through the international collaboration (ERA-Net, JPI and
similar). Compared with some of the other research areas this may indicate a relatively low
priority by the funding agencies. A focus on green and blue-green infrastructure may also be
of interest for some of the other funding agencies, such as Mistra funding research on urban
futures, but this is hard to determine properly based on the available information. Initiatives
targeted to this research area and the identified priorities seem to be relatively few.
Several of the funding agencies have initiatives that target natural resources and recycling.
This includes Vinnova, Mistra, the Swedish Energy Agency, and of course Formas. This area
seems to have high priority. Innovation and technology development programmes and
initiatives targeting sustainable development solutions are included in the topics covered by
the various funding agencies. This includes the international collaboration in which Formas
participates. Accordingly, the identified societal challenges for this research area are well
covered.
Mistra and Formas provide financial support that targets ecology. There are no indications
that other funding agencies launch initiatives targeted at this type of research. Formas
includes the topic through international collaborations (ERA-Net, JPI and similar).
Compared with some of the other research areas this may indicate a relatively low priority
according to the available information. Initiatives from funding agencies that target this
research area and the identified societal challenges seem to be relatively few.
10
The number of funding agencies in Sweden is high, and their roles may appear
uncoordinated, sometimes overlapping, and there is a risk of fragmentation in funding. It is
necessary for the funding agencies to come together and provide a more holistic, less
fragmented funding for the future.
2.1.2.2 Research communities
It is not easy to assess if the volume of environmental research so far is sufficient, and what
volume would be sufficient in the future. According to the Comparative Study on Research
Policy (SPR report), Swedish investment in R&D is at a rather high level compared to other
countries.
Of the relative amounts of research funding reported from the 11 Swedish universities, the
environmental sciences comprise 30% of the total. The research in agriculture and forestry as
well as environmental technology may well interact with aspects of environmental sciences,
and could indicate that the total funding distributed to the area of the environment is greater
than 30%. Thus, Sweden supports research related to environmental aspects to a large
degree, reflecting at nation that emphasizes ecosystem services as being very important for
the quality of life and national economy.
The output and profile from environmental sciences matches the input in funding well. We
could not find any significant negative or positive deviations in output relative to the amount
of funding inputs. The publication of peer review papers constitutes between 65% to more
than 70% of the total output, indicating an adequate international standard of the research.
Conference proceedings are rather important (> 10%) in Natural resource & recycling of
materials and Environmental effects & toxicology, but less so in Ecology and Environment
& nature conservation (< 10%). Non-specified other types of outputs (probably outreach
and popularization) constitute more than 10 – 20% of the output. Books and book chapters
are marginal in volume compared to the other categories.
The EU-funding varies from noticeable to low. The low EU-funding in ecology warrants a
thorough analysis. Other funding sources (private non-profit organizations, other
government agencies, ALF funds, counties and municipalities, companies, other public
research foundations and transfer between universities) comprises 15 – 30% of the total
funding, and the contribution from Formas is from 10 – 20%. The Swedish Research
Council contributes just over 5% of the total funding, thus indicating that the fundamental
research in environmental sciences could be increased.
The basic funding provided to the 11 institutions is by far the largest contributor to financial
support (from between 40% to more than 50%), indicating that environmental research is
highly prioritized.
For research targeted towards environmental effects and environmental toxicology, the
11
majority of funding is provided by the institution’s basic funding, other sources, Formas and
the Swedish Research Council (in that order of magnitude). The EU-funding is also
noticeable. This funding distribution is slightly surprising. A focus on green innovation and
environmental technology funded by e.g. Vinnova seems to be of less priority than more
basic environmental studies within this research area. This may indicate that the research
field has less interest in the societal relevance expressed through the various funding
agencies/organisations.
For research targeted towards environment and nature conservation, the majority of the
funding is basic funding, other funding sources, Formas and the Swedish Research Council.
The EU funding is small but noticeable. This is in accordance with expectation. A higher
focus on green and blue-green infrastructure, (e.g. the EU as an important means for
implementation of the biodiversity convention), would be desirable.
For research targeted towards natural resources and recycling of materials, the majority of
the funding is basic funds, other funding sources and Formas. Funding from the remaining
sources that is of noticeable proportion includes EU, Vinnova, the Swedish Energy Agency
and the Swedish Research Council. Mistra apparently does not contribute to this research
field. The relative proportion of funding for this research area is smaller than the other
environment-related research fields. Considering the topic and the priorities of the funding
agencies, the relative distribution of funding is not surprising, except for the lack of funding
from Mistra.
For research targeted towards ecology, the majority of the funding is from basic funds, other
funding sources, Formas and the Swedish Research Council. The proportion of EU-funding
is small. The research field relative to the total funding and publication output is larger than
the two other environment-related research fields: Environment and nature conservation and
Environmental effects and toxicology.
2.1.3 Impact
2.1.3.1 Case studies
This section comments on 33 case studies categorized as primarily related to Environmental
research. All the 11 universities submitted from two to five cases, and they reported financial
support from a wide range of the financial agencies. The most frequently mentioned were
Formas, Vinnova, Mistra, Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Energy Agency. In a
few cases, the Swedish National Space Board and the Swedish Transportation administration
also contributed. Other agencies provided support as well, and the basic funds of the
institutions were actually the major contributor in most of the cases.
12
2.1.3.2. Impact – reach and significance
Reach
The majority of the cases were able to demonstrate more than a moderate reach. They
discussed reach in terms of geographic impact, where examples included local, national,
European and global-scale aspects. The discussions also included reach in a societal context,
mentioning how the results reached the general population, certain population groups, such
as young children, mothers, and people owning wood boilers; certain groups of industries or
economic sectors, such as agriculture, silviculture, and solar cell producers; as well as reach to
the authorities in Sweden, Europe, and the UN.
Certain characteristics are associated with the cases assessed to be of very high reach. The
studies consider issues of more general concern, at least at the European level, potentially
supporting collaboration with and development in other nations and regions. This includes
cases where the research clearly focuses on the Swedish situation and context, but it has a
generic dimension and the research group is aware of this and links with the international
context.
The vast majority of the cases have demonstrated linkages to an international research
context, but this is not in itself a guarantee that the research will have a wide reach. Some
examples of cases pointed out an academic international dimension, but the idea of ensuring
a societal reach, national or international, only pointed to potential users of the results. Some
researchers seemed less concerned about the potential target groups, and how to transfer the
results, and in this way reduced their chances to making their results useful for stakeholders.
Some cases demonstrated direct involvement with the end users, both private companies as
well as authorities. There are examples of close collaboration with industries (which means
that the output is confidential) and others demonstrating close interaction with authorities
supporting the design of regulation and negotiation processes. Other cases provide examples
of how far it is possible to reach by having a very active dissemination strategy, engaging
with media, interest groups and other stakeholders.
Several cases stand out as examples of research providing impact with a wide reach and best
practices. The cases also include examples where a wide reach may not be expected, but the
topic is still important to investigate e.g. more fundamental research where possible impact
may become apparent over a longer term. It is important to make room for this kind of
research.
Only a few cases are given a low score. These cases include those where the research has a
good potential for supporting societal challenges, but where the researchers are unaware, or
do not have the societal challenge as a priority – or the project is in an early stage where
results have not yet been produced.
13
Significance
Many of the cases demonstrate or illustrate the significance or the potential significance of
the results. Some are clearly very useful for the stakeholders (industrial developments,
farmers, authorities). Some are more speculative, assuming a dedicated interest by e.g.
consumers in order to harvest the suggested benefits. It is apparently in general easier to
describe and provide a clear justification for the significance than the reach. The significance
also depends on the actual uptake of the results where existing approaches, technologies,
costs, rules and regulations may become obstacles and barriers to the transfer of the new
knowledge in reality.
The suggested beneficiaries cover a very wide range of groups, from the ’general public’,
specific groups of people (e.g. stratified age groups), industry in general, certain industrial
and economic sectors and public authorities, to other researchers. Some cases demonstrate a
rather close relation with the suggested beneficiaries in the way the research is being
conducted, whereas others have a more ’hand-over’ approach delivering the results once they
are ready. The right approach depends on the context, but a higher level of engagement may
increase the likelihood of increasing the significance.
Total assessment of impact
Table 2 below shows the distribution of the grading of the case studies, based on the average
assessment of each case by each sub-group member. The weighted total score1 was 3.3, thus
indicating above moderate impact. This is considered to be a good result by the review team.
Table 2. The distribution of impact score and the weighted total impact score of the Environmental research
cases.
Scoring criteria (total score)
Number of cases
Very High (5)
1
High (4)
12
Moderate (3)
17
Low (2)
2
Not assessable (1)
1
Weighted total score
3.3
The average total score of each case is calculated as a simple average of the input from the
group. This number is rounded up or down to give a whole number (the average grade).
Based on this, the distribution of grades is constructed and based on this distribution the
average score is calculated as the simple weighted score of all cases.
1
14
Applying the DPSIR framework to the case studies
To structure thinking about the interplay between the environment and socio-economic
activities, the European Environment Agency (EEA) uses the "DPSIR" framework. From a
policy point of view, there is a need for clear and specific information on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Driving forces and
the resulting environmental Pressures on
the State of the environment and the
Impacts resulting from changes in environmental quality and on
the societal Responses to these changes in the environment.
This approach can encourage and support decision-making, by pointing to clear steps in the
causal chain where the chain can be broken by policy action.
Classifying the approaches of each case study according to the DPSIR steps
indicates a significant lack of research on Driving forces (social, demographic and economic
developments in societies and the corresponding changes in lifestyles, overall levels of
consumption and production patterns) and Pressures (developments in release of substances
(emissions), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and the use of land for
human activities).
The conclusion from this rough analysis is that there is a need for more holistic
multidisciplinary research in the future, with cooperation between social and natural sciences
as an important element in the research programs.
15
2.1.4 SWOT analysis
Table 3. SWOT of the Environmental research area.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• High quality measured as research outputs in peer
reviewed journals.
• Limited research related to driving forces and
pressures of environmental problems.
• Good impact demonstrated through case studies
• Limited integration with the relevant societal sectors
e.g. agriculture, energy, industry, and climate.
• Strong research base and signalled as high priority by
the Government.
• High volume in funding for environmental research
compared with other countries.
• Case studies indicate that international collaboration
is frequently present.
• Sweden has contributed strongly to solutions related
to societal environmental challenges.
• Fragmented funding system may weaken
formulation of holistic programs and
multidisciplinary/novel approaches to research.
• While international collaboration may be
widespread, EU funding is rather modest relative to
the total funding, indicating less interaction at the
European level. This warrants further analysis,
especially regarding ecology.
• Little evidence for crosstalk observed between
disciplines.
• Number of funding agencies may result in thematic
overlap; could be beneficial for the science, but
could also create lack of funding in other areas.
Opportunities:
Threats:
• Strong research groups comprise many of the
essential building blocks for holistic,
multidisciplinary programmes.
• Swedish research could lose impact if research
continues be fragmented and uncoordinated.
• Calls can be developed to stimulate cooperation
across disciplines targeting societal challenges.
• Formas should continue and further develop to
coordinate national funding with EU (ERA JPI etc.)
• Increase the success in EU, as an instrument to
better target the societal challenges (IPCC, etc…..);
organize administrative support across institutions.
• Further develop the national funding instruments to
improve the multidisciplinary research that can
target societal challenges even better than today.
• Connect research results from different disciplines
and produce good informative conclusions to the
decision makers.
16
• The EU calls focus highly on integration of
environment in the societal sector analyses, and
Swedish research could reduce its competitive ability
if the scientific community does not learn how to
cooperate among disciplines.
• Larger calls, conduction of holistic programs, may
cause exclusions of scientific groups that could be
vital for solving the societal challenges. Coordination
is needed.
2.2 Climate research
2.2.1 Future research directions
The main societal challenge is transformation of society into a low-carbon, resilient and
sustainable society sparked by the threat of massive climate changes from current practices.
Besides research within the more traditional disciplines, this requires research particularly
focused on climate change-related societal challenges categorized in the following three subgroups: (i) governance across different levels and sectors, (ii) decision-making under
uncertainty and (iii) societal policy change barriers.
Governance across different levels and sectors
It is vital to address how all levels in society are affected by climate change, and how
response and communication strategies can be coordinated effectively across multiple
levels of governance and in multiple fields to build robust response strategies to climate
change. Steering and governance of climate change policies should be designed based on
improved collaboration between different governmental institutions, especially between
ministries and between ministries and local authorities. A key factor is to structure the
responsibility between national authorities to improve the capacity to tackle conflicting
impacts and laws. Furthermore, improved knowledge about the effects of climate change
on society in general and on the local and individual levels is particularly important. Better
communication and climate services are crucial to improve climate change awareness and
preparedness. There is a lack of knowledge, know-how and financial resources available at
the local and individual levels for gaining and maintaining appropriate knowledge , as well
as for planning and initiating preventive measures in the built environment and
infrastructure . The current knowledge level on separate climate-change related issue areas is
quite good, but we know too little about the synergistic effects of climate change and
related challenges both in natural systems, in the built environment and in how the
synergistic effects should be dealt with in governance. We need to know more about how to
manage synergistic effects both across governmental institutions and across different
ecosystem responses and we need to know about their effects on the natural systems.
Decision-making under uncertainty
Decision makers have to deal with uncertainties in many fields (population, traffic, market,
weather, etc.). However, preparing society for climate change requires a different approach
to planning and investments than has traditionally been applied. Uncertainties about future
climate changes on both the decadal time scale and the long-term scenarios are considerable
and there is a potential risk that such uncertainties become overwhelming for, or not dealt
with correctly by, decision makers. More research, both on the physical climate system and
on the social challenges that climate change poses, is necessary over the coming decades to
improve our understanding and to improve the accuracy of long term predictions of
climate change, thus reducing uncertainties in decision-making and to include uncertainty
adequately in the decision-making processes. In particular more knowledge and best
practice on decision-making and planning under uncertainties is needed.
17
Societal policy change barriers
Crossing existing societal barriers to policy change is necessary for a timely transition to a
low-carbon society. The research community should provide information about how
incentives and processes for policymaking can be designed to take into account timescales across generations. Research must contribute to the understanding of how climate
change response strategies might be implemented and achieved, and how politically feasible
and effective policies can be designed. Additionally, an improved understanding of
individual and collective practices, attitudes, values and life styles is important for
strengthening bottom-up societal policy change.
2.2.2 Climate research at present
Climate change research is at present suffering under the lack of a coordinated plan within
the Swedish research funding system. Fragmented funding from several funding agencies, of
which none have climate research as a top priority, is a potential barrier to increased societal
relevance for this research field. We find that there is a need to diversify the field to include
new research topics, especially within the social sciences, and in particular to strengthen new
parts of the research field that emphasize multidisciplinary challenges.
2.2.2.1 Funding
The overview of available funding, within the Formas areas of responsibility, at 11 Swedish
universities between 2008 and 2013 shows that climate research has received much less
funding than traditional environmental sciences fields, in particular compared to technologyoriented environmental research – in spite of a specific priority made by the Swedish
Government in the 2008/2009 Research and Innovation Bill, where 30% of 1.8 billion in
new funding was reserved for energy and climate change research.
The biggest challenge within the present funding system is that climate change research is
not a top priority for any funding agency. The current organization of responsibility between
funding agencies is to a large degree based on traditional sectors and research disciplines, and
does not take into account special needs of the relatively new field of climate research. There
is no room for a specific prioritization of climate change in the current system, and there
have been very few specific calls or programs on climate change. The majority of funding
goes to basic research (more than 70%), while the societal challenges of today require an
applied research approach as well. In particular, the current funding structure is not suited to
respond to the fact that climate science is expanding in a more multidisciplinary direction.
This development is not sufficiently captured in the current system, and results in funding
structures that are not well-suited to handling the transdisciplinary character of climate
change research and satisfyingly address synergistic effects.
Climate change researchers deliver high class publications, despite the low proportion of
funding in today’s system. It is the impression of the panel, given the case study material and
other reports provided for our review, that social science- and humanities-oriented climate
18
change research has been underfunded. There is however substantial uncertainty about the
amount of funding going into climate research, since the material provided for the panel’s
review does not include funding directed to agencies and authorities where important climate
change adaptation research happens. Funding opportunities for social sciences can perhaps
be found here.
From the material provided, it seems that Vinnova and Mistra have the most relevant
transdisciplinary strategies because they focus (partly) on societal problems and innovation
rather than on research in specific, traditional sectors. The panel finds that the involvement
of Formas in various EU research initiatives are very important and more goal-oriented in
the long term.
We believe that Swedish funding agencies would benefit from coordinating their activities
within a national strategy for climate change research and such coordination effort is strongly
recommended.
2.2.2.2 Research communities
In the current funding system, 90% of the funding distributed by Formas goes to 11
universities. There appears to be a general trend in the Swedish funding system to prioritize
basic research over applied research, and to prioritize traditional disciplinary research over
multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary research.
We see a risk for national funding sources being wrongly distributed concerning climate
change sciences. There is currently a very large portion that potentially goes to basic research
in traditional fields of environmental and earth sciences. More funding should probably be
directed at research that involves interaction between researchers and societal user partners,
both public agencies and business/industry partners.
It should be noted that the numerous research institutes doing applied research are not
included in the background material for the present report, thus a portion of the climate
research funded by the smaller part of the total funding which is directed to the research
institute sector is omitted from the material and the analysis and conclusions.
2.2.3 Impact
2.2.3.1 Case studies
This section comments on 15 case studies categorized as primarily related to climate
research. Given the relatively small number of case studies and the fact that several
universities that are active in climate research did not provide any climate change case
studies, the panel concludes that we might not be looking at a representative or solid case
study material from which to evaluate the impact of Swedish research in the climate research
field. Given these limitations, however, the panel finds that the case studies show a large
variation in terms of type of project, amount of funding, time to impact, stability of the
19
research groups, and degree of stakeholder involvement. All of these factors influence how
we should interpret their significance and reach. The cases varied from PhD projects with
relatively limited funding and limited number of participants to mature projects that have
received funding for many years and developed experienced researcher groups with broad
networks. As a result, we find a large variation in opportunity to publish in high-ranked
journals and communicate with societal partners due to the variation in experience and
networks. Some of the projects have a local impact, while some have international impact.
Both types of impact can be valuable and have relevant societal significance.
Given the special nature and complexity of the climate change problem, this is a research
area that involves most societal sectors and is very politically relevant. Hence, research
should to be user oriented and interact with societal partners to ensure relevance. In the case
studies we see differences in the level of involvement of users from the start and that early
involvement results in better reach. We believe that one important success criteria is to
ensure involvement of user partners from the start of projects.
The panel agreed that on an overall basis the cases were good, and gave all cases studies
grades from moderate to very high impact. One case study was graded very high by all four
panel experts, while one was graded moderate impact by all. The remaining 13 were
evaluated with a variation of moderate/high/very high grades given by the panel.
2.2.3.2 Impact: Reach and significance
In general, the panel finds that Swedish climate research has good reach and significance for
challenges that were identified 15 years ago. However, there is an urgent need to adjust the
focus to include also new challenges. Societal challenges have changed significantly over
time, and Swedish research need to focus more on the four challenges identified above.
These challenges should guide research strategies going forward. There is a clear need to
diversify the research field, include new transdisciplinary topics, and strengthen new parts of
the field that emphasize multidisciplinary challenges. The case studies give a picture of where
Swedish research stands now. Our challenges point to where research strategies should be
focused.
As a caveat, we would like to emphasize that significance and outreach reported in other
groups of this evaluation panel are also relevant for climate change. The cases evaluated in
this group were limited to 15, but – as previously noted – cases in other groups are also
relevant for evaluating the impact of climate change research.
The climate change research field is relatively new, and has arisen as a result of political
challenges identified over the past 20 years. Hence, the maturity and dynamics are different
than in other fields within the responsibility area of Formas, and this naturally affects how
reach and significance are evaluated within the field.
The table below shows the distribution of the grading of the case studies, based on the
average assessment of each case by each review group member. The weighted total score was
20
3.9, thus indicating an impact well above moderate. This is considered a good result by the
review panel.
Table 4. The distribution of impact score and the weighted total impact score of the Climate research cases.
Scoring criteria of total score
Number of cases
Very High (5)
4
High (4)
6
Moderate (3)
5
Low (2)
0
Not assessable (1)
0
Average score
3.9
21
2.2.4 SWOT analysis
Table 5. SWOT of the Climate research area.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• Climate sciences provide an opportunity to
demonstrate the immediate need and impact of
research output for policymakers and society.
• High potential for closer collaborations with endusers and connections to policymakers than
academic universities usually have, with scientific
output more diversely spread than traditional
scientific output.
• Climate change research is not a top priority for any
funding agency within today’s organization of
responsibility between the agencies, and it is the
impression of the panel that social science-oriented
climate change research has been underfunded.
• Climate science is expanding in a more
multidisciplinary direction that is not captured in the
current funding structure.
• Climate change researchers deliver high class
publications, despite receiving a low proportion of
funding in today’s system.
• There is a lack of knowledge and competence in the
research community concerning societal challenges
in the field.
• More international collaboration than other research
fields assessed.
• The multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary nature of
climate change research challenges traditional
scientific disciplines.
• It is difficult to find reviewers and scientists that take
into account the transdisciplinary character of
climate change when they evaluate quality of
research.
Opportunities:
Threats:
• Climate change research has an opportunity to be
directly relevant for political decision-making.
• Meeting the societal challenges in climate change
provide an opportunity for new and improved
organizational setup and strategic thinking in
research funding.
• The multidisciplinary character of the climate change
problem provides an opportunity for positive
scientific synergies, improving societal relevance.
• Highly prioritized research field for the Government
of Sweden, and should be followed up in a
coordinated way by funding agencies.
• Gives an opportunity for innovation and market
growth, for example as presented in the EU
Roadmap for Climate Services.
22
• Sweden is behind several of the EU partners in
terms of national strategies, coordination and
political steering concerning climate change
adaptation.
• There is a lack of knowledge on climate change in
the society in general.
• There are a number of competing immediate societal
challenges (economic crises, war, education, health,
etc.) that make it hard for policymakers to prioritize
climate change issues.
• Lack of experts and funding structures that can
handle the transdisciplinary character of climate
change research and address synergistic effects.
2.3 Building and Planning research
2.3.1 Future research directions
The built environment represents enormous values and is an integrated part of society with
very significant impact on its efficiency and sustainability. Thus the societal challenges related
to the planning and building area are many and diverse. Below we have categorized the
challenges into three main societal challenges and identified the specific challenges related to
building and planning and the research questions in the area; the areas being (i) Rapid
Urbanization, (ii) The Aging Built Environment and (iii) The Unsustainable Building Sector.
Rapid Urbanization
Rapid urbanization, see e.g. Boverket: Vision för Sverige, is a global trend that severely
affects the Swedish urban, but also rural, sustainable development, see e.g. “Sweden`s
National Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2002”. Related to urbanization are a number
of linked societal challenges that need more research, for instance the housing shortage
crisis . How do we handle this shortage with planning and building activities of the necessary
quality and proper dialogue with the citizens/stakeholders? How do we manage to build a
sufficient amount of dwellings and less expensive new dwellings for economically weaker
groups of citizens? A research response to this challenge calls for more transdisciplinary
approaches to social, economic, ecological and cultural sustainability. More sustainable
systems of transportation . How do we handle the transformation from a motoring society
to a society more highly based on public transport, walking and cycling? The cities are of
greatest importance here. How do we plan for more sustainable forms of transport and more
effective use of existing transportation systems? Social sustainability in the urban
landscapes . How do we handle the growing “urban divide” between richer and poorer
areas? Spatial segregation and inequitable living conditions in different parts of the cities may
lead to instability and stagnation. There is a need for scientific knowledge that address these
issues, as well as a need to develop better tools for more efficient and democratic planning
processes. Densification with quality . How do we plan for liveable and attractive cities
with higher density? How do we find the right balance between existing and new urban
qualities? How can we combine densification with the protection of different kinds of
irreplaceable natural and cultural values?
The Aging Built Environment
Very large parts of the infrastructure in Sweden and around the world in the industrialized
societies are approaching a critical age and huge challenges are related to the management of
the aging built environment. Renovation of built environment. Sweden has a huge
challenge regarding renovation of the built environment. It is necessary to meet high
demands regarding sustainability, particularly energy efficiency, but cost efficiency also has to
be achieved as enough funding for renovation is lacking. Built environment in this context
includes both buildings and infrastructure and the involvement and care of tenants.
Conservation of cultural heritage . Sweden has a rich variety of architectural heritage from
various time periods and there are clear demands for cautious renovation and considerations
23
related to cultural values in the legislation. Societal changes sometimes put cultural heritage
under hard pressure because of conflicting interests. There is a need for further research in
this area.
The Unsustainable Building Sector
Despite its volume and significance to society, the building sector innovation and level of
change is not very high. The sector is lagging behind other sectors. This is a major issue in a
rapidly changing society faced by a variety of challenges. One is the inefficiency of the
building industry . The building industry still suffers from low productivity development.
Efforts are therefore needed, such as increased industrialisation, smart use of the
possibilities that digitalization provides, implementation of lean thinking and new forms
of cooperation in and organization of construction projects. Additional challenges are the
environmental challenges in building and production . New buildings and infrastructure
not only must meet high demands regarding energy efficiency, but also climate impact and
adaption to a circular economy. There is a lack of holistic resilience; there are efforts and
improvements going on in parts of the sector, but the situation is too fragmented. The
demands of society are changing more rapidly. Therefore buildings must have a high level of
flexibility, to be able to be changed easily from one type of use to a new type (i.e. conversion
from office building to residential).
2.3.2 Building and planning research at present
The research in Sweden regarding building and planning is rather fragmented, but a
coordination is on hand through the institution “Sveriges Bygguniversitetet” 2, an
organization connecting the leading research and planning educating institutions in Sweden.
The association IQ-Samhällsbyggnad; the Swedish Centre for Innovation and Quality in the
Built Environment 3 is also important here, promoting collaboration between the research
communities, municipalities and the industry with a strong focus on increasing the quality of
the built environment and making research useful in practice. Furthermore, Swedish research
in this area has a stronghold in its tradition for cooperation between stakeholders in the
sector and the research communities.
2.3.2.1 Funding
We do find funding that addresses the challenges in the area. A number of research
programs address the challenges directly or indirectly. They are particularly found in within
the areas of responsibility of Formas. Under headlines like “sustainable municipal research”
and “coordinated urban development – sustainability” we certainly find research that
addresses these societal challenges. The problem, however, is that these headlines are too
broad to give the necessary information on what projects exactly were funded in these areas.
2
http://www.sverigesbygguniversitet.se/pages/
3
http://www.iqs.se/
24
It is also almost impossible to extract information about the volume of research that meets
these challenges. The research funding reports do not give much information. The general
picture of the funding of research related to this sector, however, seems to be quite small
compared to the size of the sector (around 10% of GNP). The sector gets a substantial
amount of funding, but related to the big impact of this area on society, it may still be
insufficient. More money here could be well spent from a societal point of view.
2.3.2.2 Research communities
The level of academic publications is lower compared to other research areas, particularly
peer reviewed articles at a high level. 4 The academic output of the research in this sector
demonstrates a high level of conference proceedings. This might be an implication of the
close connection of the research community to the industry and a diverse group of
stakeholders where the communication of results from research to a high degree is published
in conference literature and in other arenas. The research community covers a range of
research areas and research environment, however, and includes also research environments
that perform at a very high academic level. However, the overall level of the sector lies at the
lower end of the measured indicators of high academic performance, which has to be
regarded as a problem. This problem calls for deeper analysis and new proposals for making
the planning and building discipline academically stronger. There should not be any
contradiction, however, between high academic level and close collaboration with practice.
2.3.3 Impact
This section comments on 17 case studies categorized as primarily related to Building and
Planning research. In this pool of cases we find a huge variety of cases; from studies that
focus on quite material outputs, such as heating pumps, to soft projects analyzing cultural
aspects of the countryside, which also reflects the sectors plurality; it is diverse,
multidisciplinary and broad. In the case studies 9 of the 11 universities are represented, with
KTH having the largest amount of studies (4).The funding sources are possible to identify
for some studies. In other studies funding is combined from different sources. In some of
the cases the societal challenges relevant to the group are clearly addressed, in others these
challenges are more peripheral. The cases also differ in their reach and significance. We find
cases that score very high on both reach and significance, but we also find cases where this is
much harder to extract, either because the information given does not address this, or
because of the nature of the study, or simply because the reach and significance is rather low.
Cases that we find have a high impact factor demonstrate:
•
•
high involvement of stakeholders , such as companies, industries, governments and
citizens/consumers,
the projects are mostly based on scientific research standards ,
Both the two research areas ”Bebyggelse, Bygg och forvaltningprocessen and «Stad-och
landsbygdsutvëckling» score low for the parameters Top1 and Top5, as well as AUm compared to the
other research areas listed in the bibliometric report.
4
25
•
•
•
•
the projects are often conducted by a stable group of researchers,
they often involve international partners,
they form an interdisciplinary team and
the teams have collaborated over a number of years .
The table below shows the distribution of the grading of the case studies, based on the
average assessment of each case by each review panel member. The average total score was
3.5, thus indicating above moderate impact, with a relatively high number of case studies
scoring high (4). This is considered a satisfactory result by the review panel. In general we
found a fairly high societal impact for the chosen 17 cases.
Table 6. The distribution of impact score and the weighted total impact score of the Building and Planning
research cases.
Scoring criteria of total score
Number of cases
Very High (5)
1
High (4)
9
Moderate (3)
5
Low (2)
2
Not assessable (1)
0
Average score
3.5
26
2.3.4 SWOT analysis
Table 7: SWOT of the Building and Planning research area.
Strengths:
• Relatively large involvement of and
funding by stakeholders.
Weaknesses:
• Low score for peer review publications.
• Low research competence in the sector.
• There are relevant research environments • Total funding is low compared to the
to build upon in some research areas.
societal importance of the sector.
• IQ-Samhällsbyggnad, an initiative to
• Fragmented funding structure.
coordinate Swedish building & planning
• A too fragmented research environment
research.
that is not able to respond fast enough
to the ongoing challenges related to
rapid urbanization.
• There is sometimes a gap between
science and practice.
Opportunities:
• Build up research environments that
focus more on implementation.
• Build international collaborations.
Threats:
• Not performing well enough at the
international level may devalue the
reputation of the sector.
• Coordinated efforts exist to build upon
(«Bygguniversitetet»).
• B & P is not a sufficiently prioritized
research area in Sweden.
• Good real cases to study on a large scale.
• More interdisciplinary research.
• Slow research funding response to meet
societal challenges.
• There is societal and political awareness
of societal challenges, which represents a
window of opportunity that can demand
more research on these issues.
• Recruiting researchers with the right
competence may be a problem.
• The incitements to prioritize research are
low.
• Comprehensive and coordinated
research programs addressing the
challenges exist.
• More stable funding programs following
up on important issues over time are
necessary.
27
2.4 Agricultural research
2.4.1 Future research directions
Historical economic development has taught us that using “linear production lines” in which
large amounts of material are moved from one ecosphere to another very often leads to
environmental problems (climate change, acidification, eutrophication, heavy metal pollution,
radioactive pollution, landscape scars in the form of open mines, etc.). To reduce known
problems and prevent new ones from appearing, society must instead head towards
circulating more materials. The terms “circular economy” and “bio-based economy” are two
names for a society based on renewable resources, and they are increasingly used as a basis
for national and EU policy development and instruments. Thereby sustainable prosperity
could be achieved and along the way new business opportunities could arise. Naturally, the
desire for such development raises a range of research challenges for the agricultural research
sector. More specifically the challenges can be divided into three categories: (i) Securing
sustainable production chains, (ii) Developing a circular economy with bio-based food, feed,
energy, and biomaterial and (iii) Impact and response to climate change.
There is a great overarching challenge to find the most efficient incentives and steering
instruments for accomplishing the needed societal change. Will there be further regulations
or taxes? If so, will these be at national and/or EU level? How much responsibility can be
placed on individuals to avoid ‘bad’ products and habits, in case a majority of the population
does not find the negative effect affordable (or worth its price)? Moreover, how can knowledge
about agricultural sectors and findings be transferred to the public more efficiently than
today?
Securing sustainable production chains
Sustainability is ecological, but also economic and social. About 50% of the food in Sweden
is imported. On the other hand, many farmers have forests and are part of a big export
industry. With sustained or increased demand for biomass production, the need to reduce
negative impacts of production are further stressed. Problems that we judge as the most
urgent to solve are related to: i) Forestry – insufficient protection of biodiversity,
disturbed run-off water quality, damaged culture remnants and social values,
provision of ecosystem services (especially so called cultural ecosystem services, such as recreation,
recuperation from stress etc.) and acidification/nutrient depletion due to non-compensated
whole-tree harvesting , ii) Agriculture – healthy plants, integrated pest management,
spreading of pesticides to the environment, healthy animals , animal care, less use of
antibiotics eutrophication, and unnecessarily high GH G emissions iii) Fishing – overfishing , spreading of fish diseases, eutrophication .
How do we develop early detection systems for pests ? How can we improve collaboration
with neighbouring countries? In respect to climate adaptation in particular issues include
new or development of silvicultural/agricultural/aquacultural methods and
28
productions systems, breeding of trees, crops and animals, as well as plant protection
strategies including governance to implement such strategies.
As an example, the world is running out of mineable mineral sources of phosphorus
(especially with low Cd content and a high content of P) and thus there is a need for
development towards reduced losses and/or improved circulation of phosphorus
(runoff water, sludge/ash recirculation, extraction from sea deposits).
Another example is energy consumption and the possibility of saving energy in the
production systems.
As can be concluded from the above, production chains for food and biomass need
development as a consequence of several possibilities and development trends. In some
aspects, sustainability criteria may already be met, however there is still a need for
demonstrating this in a scientifically robust way.
Developing a circular economy with bio-based food, feed, energy, and biomaterial
The interest in healthy eating (proper mixture, low content of “bad” elements) is growing as
well as the engagement in animal welfare and food with low climate and environmental
“footprints”. These trends affect the agriculture, husbandry, aquaculture and fishing sectors.
To some extent, hunting and reindeer-keeping may be affected too. The Swedish self-supply
rate for domestic food consumption is around 50%, and the self-supply of fibre for clothes
is far less than that. Swedish consumers will probably take increased responsibility for
production impacts in countries that we import from as well. For example, cotton
production causes large-scale environmental problems, such as ground-water depletion and
pesticide spreading, in many countries. Palm oil production has caused deforestation and
peat burning over large areas in Indonesia over the past decade.
Important research areas include improved food safety and quality , development of
biofuels for transport – in particular addressing the trade-off between food
production and biofuel production , new product biochemistry and materials , food for
health, e.g. the use of so called ‘superfoods’ such as berries from Swedish forests ,
changes in consumer behaviour toward the demand for e.g. food for health , increased
food safety and overall quality and climate mitigation incentives for developing biobased products and food.
Impact and responding to climate change
The most urgent environmental problem today is climate change and this is clearly a result of
“linear production” – moving carbon from the geosphere to the atmosphere. To slow, or
even stop, further climate change the use of fossil carbon-based fuels must be drastically
reduced within a few decades and replaced by renewable energy, such as bioenergy and solar
and wind power. Increased political steering to bring about this change will likely continue to
increase market possibilities for bio-fuels and other renewable energy production. For
29
Sweden, replacing fossil fuels for land-, sea- and air-bound transportation is the single
most important challenge of all in approaching a sustainable society. Processing of limestone
into cement, the use of fossil coal for steel production and fossil oil for machine greasing are
also quantitatively important CO 2 emitting activities in Sweden. Stronger incentives for
reducing such emissions could mean increased use of sawn wood for construction and
biomass for steel production and greasing . A dropping demand for newspaper paper
makes the forest industry open for developing new products. In the coming years, domestic
forests could therefore become a significant source for biofuels and other products
that are currently made from non-renewable sources (plastics, chemicals, etc.). Also
agriculture may contribute with more high-prized special products . Other issues that need
further analysis are methane emissions from cows and sheep, nitrous oxide formation
caused by N fertilisation and GH G balance changes caused by drainage , both in
terms of field research and life cycle analyses. Such analysis should be balanced against the
fact that cow and sheep farming provide an important contribution to other societal goals,
like maintained biodiversity and an open landscape.
Climate change will affect all biological production as growing seasons will be prolonged,
and patterns for raining and snowing (and possibly also winds) will change and have impacts
on frost patterns and drought and pest risks. For forestry, the long rotation periods underline
the need to be able to foresee the impact of climate change towards the end of the
century and analyse whether changes in regeneration and stand formation practices are
already needed now – to create resilient forests (with breeding etc.) in terms of biomass
production, as well as other ecosystem services. Also adaptation with a medium-term
perspective needs further attention, e.g. concerning road quality development, improved
technologies for terrain transport and butt rot prevention.
Research issues related to climate change include effects of climatic changes in terms of
production and damage risks; can various effects and responses be simulated ? In respect
to climate mitigation in particular more knowledge is needed about modified silvicultural
and agricultural methods and approaches to mitigate climate change and
demonstration of climate mitigation efficiency .
2.4.2 Agricultural research at present
2.4.2.1 Funding
The current research funding system only partly supports the research needs identified
above. There have been some special calls (e.g. the Mistra ‘Indigo – Instrument Design for
Global Climate Mitigation’, ‘Biotech – Biotechnology for Sustainable and Competitive
Agriculture’ and ‘Food Systems’) but overall it appears that research funding is rather
fragmented and is not able to respond to the new societal and research demands effectively.
A more coordinated and collaborative funding approach that focuses on (some) of the new
demands is needed.
30
Compared with other Nordic countries Sweden has a lower proportion of funding allocated
to agricultural research relative to several other Formas target areas (see: Patel, Jagger &
Nemoto: Comparative Study on Research Policy, 2015). The division line is however not
sharp between agricultural and environmental research. We think it is an advantage if
environmental studies of management systems are integrated with studies of improved
management systems to an even higher degree than today. The bioenergy focus area that has
been funded for quite a long time by the Energy Agency is a good example. Learning times
are shortened, meaning that environmental studies will be performed for realistic
management examples, and improved management systems can be designed based on recent
news about potential negative effects of older systems.
2.4.2.2 Research communities
Overall, the Swedish research community is of high international quality, although the
bibliometric analysis shows some variation. In terms of the quantity of scientific output
Swedish research is also at a good level. Furthermore, the analyses show that Swedish
researchers publish considerably with international colleagues, indicating that Swedish
researchers are well networked internationally. Thus, the potential to perform high quality
research focussing on the new and important research areas exists.
Looking to bibliometric analyses of the Formas interest areas (Sandström: Agriculture,
Environment, Building & Planning and Climate research in Sweden – a Bibliometric analysis, 2015),
agricultural engineering was one of seven areas identified as a “hot spot” area, in which
Swedish research stands out, from a citation point of view, at a global level.
Within nearby and partly overlapping areas, such as biological conservation, environmental
sciences and soil science, Swedish research is also identified as quite strong, with a major
potential.
In the same analysis, most of the remaining sub-areas of agricultural sciences were classified
as “neither strong nor weak” (not always able to carry out research that is cited (by other
researchers that is). These areas include agricultural economics and policy, agricultural dairy
and animal sciences, agricultural multi and agronomy, food science and technology, forestry,
fisheries and veterinary sciences.
2.4.3 Impact
2.4.3.1 Case studies
This section comments on the 18 case studies categorized as primarily related to Agricultural
research. These case studies dealt with a variety of subjects, but they were chosen by the
universities themselves as good examples. The selection was, however, rather narrow and
this forms a limitation for the evaluation. The key words in the titles include aquaculture,
diesel jet fuel, animal transport, new material concepts, animal welfare, acidification from
whole-tree harvesting, functional fibre, lynx in reindeer land, nutrient management, the
honey bee, seed treatment, dirt track, bulls for breeding, eradication of a cow virus infection,
31
pheromone traps for fruit gardens, genetic improvement of aspen, genetic variation, and
DNA testing for livestock breeding.
Some research areas within agriculture were not represented among the cases. For instance,
silvicultural studies, crop production, and fishery are not represented among these studies.
As the cases are so different, it is difficult to draw any definite and general conclusions about
how a project becomes highly influential on society. However, we think that features of
projects that seem to help to create a large impact are successful projects that deal with
urgent issues and manage to keep the mission to answer to society´s question in focus, and
they are projects that persist over more than three/four years. In other words, long-term
research seems to have a large effect, as it has had more time to interact with the society (see
also section 2.4.3.2.). Often the significant impact in terms of changed rules, views, practices,
etc. comes from a group (not too fixed in terms of members) that are able to work broadly
with an issue over several years and often with different funding sources over time.
2.4.3.2 Impact
Based on the case studies and our collective experience, we conclude that research within
agricultural sciences, as well as closely associated environmental studies, has had a large
impact on the development of the sectors and related societal development over the past 10
– 15 years. The environmental goal system, formed in the year 2000, has been one important
channel for transferring new knowledge into active land use and environmental management.
Other channels are the development of various sector regulations and governmental and
company-based advice extension. It also seems that the environmental goals have
encouraged Swedish researchers to take such goals set by society into consideration when
planning their research. Thus, it seems that the environmental goals have at least to a certain
degree directed Swedish research.
The academic impact, as demonstrated in the bibliometric analyses, does not correlate well
with societal impact. Some research areas survive just because the output is highly demanded
in a narrow sector line, for example framed by local crops, damaging agents, and legislation
or similar. Research on pine weevil and new methods for protecting tree plants against it is
one example, and research on peat soils is another. The potential for high academic citation
rate is low in such cases and yet the potential for societal impact is high.
One of the determinants of societal impact seen in the case descriptions is the length of the
project. Projects of longer duration have had the time have an impact in the society, while
projects of shorter duration have not yet had a significant impact. On the other hand, small
and short questions can be solved by a small and short project.
Table 8 below shows the distribution of the grading of the case studies, based on the average
assessment of each case by each review panel member. The average total score was 3.6, thus
indicating above moderate impact, with a relatively high number of case studies scoring high
(4). This is considered by the review panel to be a satisfactory result and, as mentioned, we
believe that agricultural research has had a large societal impact over the past 10 – 15 years.
32
Table 8. The distribution of impact score and the weighted total impact score of the Agricultural research
case studies.
Scoring criteria of total score
Number of cases
Very High (5)
0
High (4)
12
Moderate (3)
5
Low (2)
1
Not assessable (1)
0
Average score
3.6
33
2.4.4 SWOT analysis
Table 9. SWOT of the Agricultural research area.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• A good scientific publication rate in most areas.
• Fragmented funding structure.
• The research is at a relatively high international level and
the Swedish forestry research is in many aspects
considered world-leading.
• Large number of smaller stakeholders.
• Sweden has a strong tradition of environmental
monitoring and surveillance, of quality control on food
and other products, and of research on sustainability
related issues, much to build on, including high quality
data.
• Most of the areas involved have once had higher funding
levels.
• Polarized research in research “traditional optimized
production” on one side and “environmental problems
and ecological production” on the other.
• Too little impact from academically high-level research.
• Lack of general support for management of EU projects.
• Lack of funding of and focus on field-based research.
• Lack of regeneration within the research community.
• All sectors involved are spread over the country and there
is an abundance of sites to use for studies.
• The awareness of the need to reduce the use of fossil
fuels for transportation is high and is frequently expressed
in open debate.
• Swedes are relatively early in terms of exhibiting
consumption trends that will possibly stay and spread, e.g.
in terms of wanting to eat healthy food and to reduce the
ecological footprint of consumption.
Opportunities:
Threats:
• Exploitation of collaboration between companies,
researchers, NGOs and authorities.
• Brain drain in agriculture research.
• Exploitation of a long and relatively successful history of
traditional production and genetic selection research and
development.
• The on-going reduction in demand for newspaper paper
opens up a space in terms of forest, capital and company
resources.
• A demonstrated interest in lowering the ecological
footprint of food and textile consumption.
• A drive in all the Nordic countries to move towards a biobased circular economy.
• Risk that international and national policy development
moves faster than knowledge in certain respects and
becomes partly based on misinterpretations and
simplifications.
• Higher demands on environmental performance for
Swedish agriculture relative to competitors may in some
cases result in higher production costs, lost market share
and thus a weakened sector.
• Increased demands for projects on detailed accounting
and evaluation may reduce the time used within
funds/projects for actual research and make a research
career less attractive.
• Lack of funding for long-term field studies.
34
3 Conclusions
From the perspective of the four different research fields – environmental, climate, building
and planning and agricultural research – major societal challenges have been identified by the
committee that future research in these areas can help to meet.
Not surprisingly, the current global, overarching challenges related to sustainability play a key
role in all research areas. More specifically, the four groups of the committee have identified
a number of issues. These include the challenges from the effect of climate change on
ecosystems and the built environment, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, depletion of
resources and loss of biodiversity, supply of sustainable energy, sustainable supply of safe
and healthy food – all of which point to the importance of changing societies from linear to
circular based economies.
It is characteristic that all the issues mentioned above are related to two or more research
areas, and in some cases to all of the four research areas, which gives a clear indication of the
complexity of the issues and the necessity of using cross-disciplinary approaches to meet the
challenges.
A number of societal challenges are also identified that are specific to the various research
areas. Pollution and waste handling (environmental research), governance challenges and
regulatory issues are specifically highlighted by the climate research group, while the building
and planning group specifically highlights urbanization, infrastructure degradation and
inefficiency in the building sector.
It is pointed out that due to the cross-disciplinary and complex nature of the identified
challenges, improved communication strategies between decision makers, scientists,
practitioners and the public are crucial for research results to have an impact. The focus has
to move from traditional communication of data towards communication targeting
reliability, trust and soft values, in particular focusing on interaction between the research
community and the stakeholders in society through dedicated interaction and co-production
of knowledge to promote the application of research results and their implementation in
decision-making and policy making processes. In this context, it is vital that researchers
deliver the integrated decision-support tools needed by politicians and practitioners.
As mentioned, the research challenge is cross-disciplinary, but not just across the four
research environments represented in this report. The research effort requires contributions
from research fields such as anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history and economy. For
example, environmental impacts as well as solutions are not the same for the whole
population, but depend on age, gender, religion, local community, social class and so on.
Thus, solutions that have to do with individual behavior and choices have to be adapted to
different living conditions, and clearly the challenges associated with rapid urbanization can
35
only be understood and solved with an integrated effort involving anthropology, sociology,
technical sciences and economy, to mention only a few. Moreover, linkage between
environment and health needs attention, particularly in relation to urbanization.
In most cases, the challenges identified have a global dimension. Consumption in Sweden
requires use of resources and causes environmental impacts in other countries and the
emission of greenhouse gases is clearly not only a national issue. This needs attention when
discussing political action, negotiating distribution of burdens between countries etc. We
thus need more knowledge about the interdependency and interaction between Sweden and
other countries regarding use of resources and environmental impacts, as well as regarding
solutions to environmental and climate-related problems. The global dimension also imposes
requirements on the international dimension of the research communities and the projects
that they engage in.
We suggest that the research motivated by the societal challenges described above needs
support from meta-analyses, interdisciplinary research, improved communication with, and
involvement of the stakeholders, attention to the knowledge transfer (outreach), knowledge
transformation (impact of research to the society) and policy/science dialogue.
The Swedish research funding system seems to favour generic over thematic research (Patel,
Jagger and Nemoto, 2015). Funding targeted to thematic areas may fundamentally address
the societal challenges more directly. The Swedish funding agencies partly cover the societal
challenges and research issues identified by the committee. In particular, the environmental
and building and planning-oriented challenges and themes are reasonably well covered,
however there is a mismatch between the amount of funding allocated and the societal
significance and volume of the challenges. The challenges and research themes covered by
the climate research and agricultural areas are less well covered by calls by the funding
agencies. The number of funding agencies is high in Sweden, and their roles may appear
uncoordinated, sometimes overlapping. There is a risk of fragmentation in funding. It is
necessary for the funding agencies to come together and provide a more holistic, less
fragmented funding for the future.
In total 84 cases (33 in the environmental research group, 15 in the climate research group,
17 in the building and planning research group and 18 in the agricultural research group)
have been analyzed with respect to relevance to the societal challenges identified by the
groups, and their impact, defined in terms of reach and significance. It should be noted that
the cases are not easily divided between the four research areas, and many belong in fact to
several areas – but each case has been analyzed by one panel group only.
The cases represent a large variety of research projects, stakeholders and societal challenges.
The research projects described vary in size from a single PhD project, with the associated
limited funding period, to a family of projects conducted over many years in a specific
36
research environment. The stakeholders vary from a not-specified end user – e.g. a company
or a legislative authority – to a well-defined group of stakeholders, including companies,
social groups, organizations and authorities. The application of the research results varies
from implementation of specific results in a privately owned company to a broad, significant
impact on one of the key societal challenges identified in this report. Impacts are reported
both on local, regional, national, international and global scales.
In general, the cases are evaluated as having a moderate to high impact in their relative
scopes, with some outstanding examples of research groups and projects producing results
with demonstrated impact on societal issues of key importance.
The cases studies clearly demonstrate a dedication, will and ability in the research
communities to engage in research projects addressing urgent societal challenges. In addition,
it is clear that the awareness and understanding among the researchers in the research
communities of the mechanisms and tools that it requires for research results to have an
impact and to be implemented by stakeholders and end users, is quite varied among the
research groups.
An important observation is that there is not always a correlation between the formal
academic merits of the research environments and their abilities to demonstrate societal
impact or the societal significance of the scope of their research field. Examples are found of
research groups with merits of the highest international, academic standard but with little
awareness of the application aspects while other relatively academically weak groups have
established a very close collaboration with stakeholders and demonstrate significant impact.
In general, the environmental research community scores well on both academic quality and
societal impact, the climate research community is relatively young to demonstrate significant
societal impact, the building and planning research community is in general relatively weak
from a formal academic viewpoint, but the challenges associated with field are far-reaching,
of huge economic importance and relatively well addressed by the research community,
while the agricultural research community is characterized by some discrepancy between
academic performance and societal impact.
The lack of consistent correlation between the formal academic merits of the research
environments and their abilities to demonstrate societal impact is not necessarily a problem
and it should be noted that a proper evaluation of the scientific strengths of the research
communities was not a part of the mandate for the committee. However, it is nonetheless
recommended that major societal challenges should be used for developing strategies for,
and in some cases re-focusing, both basic and applied research. It is also clear that there is a
need for further development of awareness and understanding of the mechanisms for
implementation and impact.
The committee found the following characteristics of the high-impact cases:
37
•
The research contribution comes from a stable group of researchers, contributing
with fundamental research with international orientation, possibly from participation
in international platforms.
•
There is a strong, committed involvement from stakeholders such as companies,
industries, governmental institutions and citizens.
•
The project team is international and highly cross-disciplinary and has a sound and
long-term track record of collaboration.
On the funding side the committee recommends that the Swedish funding agencies should
strengthen the coordination of their activities within a national strategy for key societal
challenges to promote cross-disciplinary research, find cross-disciplinary and
multidisciplinary approaches, and further present results in ways that support decisionmaking. Furthermore, it is recommended that Swedish funding agencies further strengthen
their participation in international programs – in particular within the EU.
38
References
Unpublished
Formas (2103) Panel guidelines 20140513.
Formas (2015) Funding and scientific output of 11 Swedish universities, PM 20150601
Formas (2015) Targeted research funding within Formas areas of responsibility by other governmental
organizations, PM 20150601
Formas (2015), Fallstudier inom Formas ansvarsområden, Formas.
Published
Liv Langfeldt & Lisa Scordato (2015) Assessing the broader impacts of research: A review of methods
and practice, NIFU Working Paper 2015-8.
Parimal Patel, Nicholas Jagger & Rie Nemoto (fc) Comparative Study on Research Policy, Science
Policy Research Unit, SPRU, University of Sussex
Ulf Sandström (fc) Agriculture, Environment, Building & Planning and Climate research in Sweden – a
Bibliometric analysis, Formas studies in Research Policy no 1.
Ministry of the Environment (2002) Sweden’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2002,
Stockholm 2002.
HEFCE (2010) Research Excellence Framework impact pilot exercise: Findings of the expert panels. A
report to the UK higher education funding bodies by the chairs of the impact pilot panels, November 2010
HEFCE (2010) Research Excellence Framework Impact pilot exercise. Guidance to expert panels, 30
March 2010.
HECFE (2010) Research Excellence Framework: Impact pilot exercise. Example case studies from Earth
Systems and Environmental Sciences, November 2010.
EEA (2015) European environment — state and outlook 2015: Assessment of global megatrends,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
Miljö- och energidepartementet (2015) Uppdrag att inkomma med analyser som ger underlag till
regeringens forskningspolitik, Miljö- och energidepartementet, M2015/1170/Mm
Miljödepartementet (2014)Uppdrag att göra en analys av finansieringen av forskningen inom Formas
ansvarsområden, Miljödepartementet, M2014/1847/Mm
Miljödepartementet (2014) Formas ska redovisa klimatforskningen enligt det förslag som Formas och
Statens energimyndighet har redovisat i rapporten 31 maj 2013, Regleringsbrev för Formas 2015,
M2014/2972/S, M2014/2138/Mnn.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Overall assessment and analysis
Extract from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s 2012 in-depth evaluation of Sweden’s
environmental objectives, Stockholm 2012.
Naturvårdverket (2012) Underlag till en färdplan för ett Sverige utan klimatutsläpp 2050, rapport
6537.
Lotta Andersson, Anna Bohman, Lisa van Well, Anna Jonsson, Gunn Persson & Johanna
Farelius (2015) Underlag till kontrollstation 2015 för anpassning till ett förändrat klimat, SMHI
KLIMATOLOGI Nr 12, 2015.
39
UN (2105) Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development
Goals, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&
menu=1300
Derek Osborn, Amy Cutter & Farooq Ullah (2015) Universal Sustainable Development Goals.
Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries. Stakeholder Forum, May
2015.
Sweden`s National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2002. A summary of Government
Communication 2001/02:172.Regjeringskanseliet.
Webb
http://www.sou.gov.se/m-201004-miljomalsberedningen/
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index_en.cfm?pg=climate-services
http://www.jpi-climate.eu/publications
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal
Boverket: Vision för Sverige: http://sverige2025.boverket.se/
40
Annex 1. Guidelines for the work of the expert group
Evaluation of Swedish research in the areas of the environment, climate, agricultural sciences
and building and planning research
Objective
The aim of the evaluation is to provide Formas with an independent analysis of Swedish
research within the areas of the environment, climate, agricultural sciences and building and
planning research. The evaluation is designed to address the following:
•
•
•
•
Societal challenges of research within the areas of environment, climate, agricultural
and building and planning sciences.
How research and national funding priorities relate to the identified Societal
Challenges.
The impact research has had in society.
Strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and challenges within the areas of the
environment, climate, agricultural sciences and building and planning research
Introduction
Formas is a governmental research-funding agency that supports basic and applied research
within the areas of environment, agricultural sciences and building and planning research
(www.formas.se ). The research that is funded should be of the highest scientific quality and
relevance to the areas of responsibility of the Council. Formas also has a responsibility to
make research results useful and to promote a sustainable development in society.
Formas has been commissioned by the Government to evaluate Swedish research within the
three areas of responsibility. The evaluation should not be restricted to research funded by
Formas but focus on Swedish research within the three areas, i.e. including research funded
by other sources. In addition, Formas has been commissioned to specifically report the result
and impact of climate research. The evaluation that you have been invited to participate in is
designed to address both of these commissions.
The evaluation consists of three parts: A) volume and prioritization of Swedish research in relation to
societal challenges, B) impact of research in society and Part C: identifying strengths and weaknesses. For
the purpose of this evaluation Formas has collected data from 11 Universities that have been
most successful in receiving funding from Formas during the period 2008 to 2013. The data
collected include: i) total amount of funding received both nationally and internationally, ii)
publication profiles and iii) case studies describing impact of research in society.
41
Additional background material for the evaluation consists of an overview study describing
the research policy in a few different countries made by the Science Policy Research Unit at
the University of Sussex. There is also a document that summarizes the Swedish funding
programs, which relates to Formas areas of responsibility that were open from 2008 to 2013.
For the purpose of addressing the material described the assessment has been divided into
three parts.
Part A: volume and prioritization of Swedish research in relation to societal
challenges
The first part of the evaluation focuses on the volume and prioritization of Swedish research
within Formas areas of responsibility and how it relates to societal challenges. The first task
is to agree on societal challenges that need to be addressed by research in the next ten years.
An assessment should be made by addressing the questions below. The background material
prepared for this part of the evaluation consists of: i) overview of research policy in a few
different countries ii) overview of Swedish funding programs that relate to Formas areas of
responsibility, iii) data on publication profiles and amount of funding within 13 different
fields of research defined by Formas.
Part B: impact of research in society
The second part of the evaluation is focused on the impact of research in society. Formas
has collected 83 case studies from research performers. From these case studies you will be
asked to assess the impact of the research.
Part C: identifying strengths and challenges
The final part is the concluding report that should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
the current research, as well as the opportunities and challenges you see to research in the
future in relation to societal challenges. We also ask you to consider opportunities for
enhanced international collaboration.
The evaluation panel
Formas has invited 16 members with expertise in the areas of environmental, climate,
agricultural and building and planning sciences to the evaluation panel. The members of the
panel are listed in Table 1 below. Half of the panel members are active researchers and half
of the panel members are stakeholders and potential users of scientific results. While the
whole panel are responsible for the outcome of the evaluation and for contributing to a
written report on the results, four members of the panel will be appointed as rapporteurs
with a specific responsibility for drafting the report.
42
Table 1. Members of the evaluation panel.
Name of expert
Øysten Johnsen
Organisation
Norwegian University of Life
Sciences
Danish Centre for Environment
and Energy
Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Danish Meteorological Institute
Country
Norway
Area of expertise
Environmental Sciences
Denmark
Environmental Sciences
Sweden
Environmental Sciences
Denmark
Climate Sciences
Norway
Climate Sciences
Sweden
Climate Sciences
Charlotte Cederbom
Centre for International Climate
and Environmental Research
Oslo
County Administrative Board
Östergötland
Swedish Geotechnical Institute
Sweden
Climate Sciences
Jari Niemälä
University of Helsinki
Finland
Agricultural Sciences
Kjell Ivarsson
Sweden
Agricultural Sciences
Hillevi Eriksson
The Federation of Swedish
Farmers
Swedish Forest Agency
Sweden
Agricultural Sciences
Henrik Stang
DTU Civil Engineering
Denmark
Torill Nyseth
University of Tromsø
Norway
Jan Byfors
Nordic Construction Company
Sweden
Åsa Dahlin
City of Stockholm
Sweden
Building and Planning
Sciences
Building and Planning
Sciences
Building and Planning
Sciences
Building and Planning
Sciences
Hanne Bach
Åsa Söderberg
Katrine Krogh
Andersen
Guri Bang
Anna Bratt
43
The material for the evaluation
Comparative Study of Research Policy
An important component of government expenditures on research and innovation is to
address a need of increased knowledge for realizing future development and economic
growth. In recent years this function of research policy has been articulated under the notion
of grand societal challenges. The purpose of the study is to present an overview of political
prioritizations and identified needs of research and innovation in society in different parts of
the world.
The study is made by the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex and
describes research policy in a few different countries: the four Nordic countries (Sweden,
Denmark, Finland and Norway), USA, the European Union, China, Brazil and India.
Overview of National funding programs
The targeted funding at eight governmental organizations was mapped. The organizations
include The Swedish Research Council, Vinnova, Mistra, The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, The Swedish National Space Board, The Swedish Energy Agency, The
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, The Swedish Transportation Administration.
Funding, scientific output and case studies
Formas has collected data on funding, scientific output and impact of research from 11
Swedish universities, which together have received more than 90% of Formas funding
between 2008 and 2013. The data collected include:
• Funding from national funding agencies, funding from the European framework
program, basic funding and other sources.
• Publication profiles specified according to the following categories: peer reviewed
articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings and other.
• Case studies describing impact of research in society.
Work plan
Activity
Formas collects data on funding, publication and impact studies from
identified research-performing organizations and other background
material
Formas invites experts to the evaluation panel
Formas prepares evaluation guidelines and summarizes data for the
evaluation
Formas sends out evaluation guidelines and background material to
the expert panel
The expert panel get acquainted with the material
Introduction meeting in remote using Adobe Connect
Individual evaluation work/assessment by panel members
Panel members send in their evaluation results/assessments
Rapporteurs make synthesis of assessments
44
Deadline
March 16
March 16
April 20
April 24
April 24 – May 4
7 May
May 11 – June 8
June 5
June 15
Panel meeting with common discussion on evaluation results and
conclusions
Rapporteurs with support from all panel members prepare a draft of
the report
Final report ready
June 15 – 17
June 29
August 20
Instructions for assessing volume and prioritization of Swedish
research in relation to societal challenges (Part A)
This assessment is designed to be addressed in a two-step process. Initially the analysis will
be performed by each panel member individually on the level of 13 research areas defined by
Formas. As a next step those individual findings will be discussed in the context of Formas
three areas of responsibility, environment sciences, agricultural sciences and building and
planning research.
The material submitted to the panel includes:
• A comparative study on research policy put together by the Science Policy Research
Unit at the University of Sussex.
• Overview of national funding programs within Formas areas of responsibility
together with Formas funded participation in international research programs.
• Data on data on the amount of funding and publication from 11 researchperforming organizations within the areas of environmental, agricultural and
building and planning research.
These documents, together with additional background material (funding and publication
data in an excel file, brief descriptions of the 11 organizations from which data has been
collected) are available in Box, where a folder for the project has been set up.
We suggest the following process for the analysis.
For the initial analysis the panel is organized in four groups (by expertise) that collaborate on
the analysis of a set of research areas. An assessment form is completed individually for each
research area assigned. A synthesis of the observations is drafted in a report template (to be
distributed). Both type of documents will be completed and shared with the whole panel
prior to the panel meeting in Stockholm.
Start by taking a look at the questions to be addressed, the list of criteria in the assessment
form and the report template.
The analysis should start with a reflection on what the societal needs of research are within a
specific area. Identify needs of research from societal challenges that you find important to
address. These reflections are shared and discussed within the work group. The report
“Comparative study of research policy and the list of societal challenges identified by the
Swedish Government” is the background material for these reflections.
Continue the analysis by addressing questions 1 – 3 below. Analyze the material submitted
by Formas by filling in an assessment form for each research area you have been assigned.
45
At a panel meeting in June the individual assessments will be discussed and preliminary
conclusions will be drawn.
A final report from the panel will be presented to Formas at the latest on August 20.
46
Questions for assessing volume and prioritization of Swedish research
in relation to societal needs
1. Reflection on what the societal needs of research are within this specific area
Identify 2 – 4 needs of research that you find important to address
2. Prioritized national funding and societal needs
Analyze the initiatives targeted towards the research area In relation to societal needs
3. Volume of Research
Analyze the volume and profile of publications from the research area
Analyze the level of funding in relation to societal needs
47
Instructions for assessing the impact of research based on case
studies
The review panel’s task is also to assess the impact of research within Formas areas of
responsibilities. The basis for assessment consists of 83 case studies from 11 Swedish
universities, describing different research projects and how the results have had impact on
society.
Definition of impact
Formas definition of research impact is any benefit or contribution that research within
Formas areas of responsibilities has made to strengthen the sustainable development of
society, i.e. a successful application of research results to achieve sustainable social,
economic, environmental or cultural effects.
Please note that:
• Academic impact (intellectual influence and contribution to advancing the discipline)
is not included in this assessment.
• Impacts can occur in any geographic territory, whether a local area, region, in
Sweden or internationally, and these are not regarded in any hierarchy of
importance.
Case studies
To assess the impact Formas has chosen to make use of case studies. One reason for this
choice is that there are concrete and successful experiences of using case studies in the UK.
This experience has shown that the case studies were relatively simple to make and they were
a good basis for assessing the quality of research impact. Another reason is that the Swedish
Research Council's (Vetenskapsrådet) new model for the allocation of research resources to
higher education institutions (FOCUS) proposes to use case studies to assess the impact of
research.
Areas of research
We started from the research that Formas funded during 2008 – 2013 and requested a total
of 89 case studies. 5 Table 1. describes the number of case studies in Formas three areas of
responsibilities (Agricultural Sciences, the Environment and Spatial Planning) and one
additional area of Climate:
Table 1. Case Studies per research area
Agricultural Sciences
The Environment
Spatial Planning
Climate
Total
Number of
Case Studies
18
29
16
20
83
Assessment Criteria and Scoring Scale
We selected 11 universities that together have received over 90% of the funds we distributed during
the period in question. Additional starting points were: a) a case study per 100 million SEK to be
submitted, b) at least three case studies per university.
5
48
There are two key criteria for assessing the extent of the impacts:
• their reach (how widely the impact has been felt)
• their significance (how much difference was made to the beneficiaries).
Reach refers to the extent of organizations, agencies and individuals who are or have been
reached by research impact. This can e.g. relate to how many people or organizations that are
affected by the impact of research.
Significance refers to what degree the impact of research has enriched, influenced, shaped or
changed policies, practices, knowledge or awareness of organizations, agencies and / or
individuals. A significant impact can be achieved within a limited area of research that
affects only a small number of organizations, agencies or individuals.
Scoring scale
When assessing the case studies, you will need to score each case study in terms of ‘reach’ and
significance’ according to the following scale:
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very High: Highly significant or innovative impacts relevant to several
situations.
High: Substantial impacts of more than incremental significance, or
incremental improvements that are wide-ranging.
Moderate: Impacts in the form of incremental improvements or process
innovation, of modest range.
Low: The impacts are of little or no significance or reach.
Not Assessable: The impacts cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information.
In order to achieve 5 (Very high) or 4 (High) impacts, a case study should demonstrate a high
level of both ‘significance’ and ‘reach’, although further down the scale, either one of these
could take precedence, as appropriate to the particular impact.
49
Annex 2. List of the 11 Swedish universities providing
material for the report
Table 1. Formas research funding, 2008 – 2013, currency SEK
Total funding
Environment
Agricultural
Building and
Planning
Sveriges
1 255 686 665
274 892 080
868 738 485
112 056 100
Lunds universitet
723 335 722
351 239 124
120 540 424
251 556 174
Göteborgs universitet
648 930 864
386 740 741
141 248 023
120 942 100
Chalmers tekniska högskola
478 070 245
189 077 001
39 871 856
249 121 388
Uppsala universitet
473 728 173
216 544 283
148 967 890
108 216 000
Kungl. Tekniska högskolan
416 722 682
136 217 000
56 960 000
223 545 682
Stockholms universitet
390 751 583
302 171 308
48 226 275
40 354 000
Umeå universitet
326 082 950
124 680 303
110 999 647
90 403 000
Karolinska Institutet
188 880 814
104 652 590
13 318 224
70 910 000
Luleå tekniska universitet
146 601 394
32 484 486
557 000
113 559 908
Linköpings universitet
132 332 750
37 633 000
45 970 750
48 729 000
Övriga (Other)
303 156 989
148 367 409
48 265 362
106 524 218
5 484 280 831
2 304 699 325
1 643 663 936
1 535 917 570
Lantbruksuniversitet
(CTH)
(KTH)
Summa
50