Strategic analysis of UK environmental research activity · SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats UK United Kingdom Web World Wide Web Correct at time of printing August

Strategic analySiS of UK environmental reSearch activity

erff report 04

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

ERFF MEMBERS

BBSRC Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research CouncilDefra Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDFID Department For International Development DfT Department for TransportEA Environment AgencyESRC Economic & Social Research Council MRC Medical Research CouncilNE Natural EnglandNERC Natural Environment Research CouncilSE Scottish ExecutiveSEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

ERFF CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

EPSRC Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council FC Forestry CommissionFSA Food Standards AgencyHSE Health and Safety ExecutiveJNCC Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeMet Office Met OfficeWAG Welsh Assembly Government

OTHER TERMS

BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory ReformEPICS Environmental Pressures, Impacts, Consequences and SolutionsERFF Environment Research Funders’ ForumERANET European Research Area NetworkEU European UnionFEC Full Economic CostsPP Primary purposeR&D Research and DevelopmentRCs Research councilsSEERAD Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs DepartmentSET Science, Engineering and TechnologySKEP Scientific Knowledge for Environmental ProtectionSNIFFER Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & ThreatsUK United KingdomWeb World Wide Web

Correct at time of printing August 2007

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

�

CONTENTS

Contents 1

aCknowledgements 3

eXeCUtIVesUmmaRY 4

foRewoRd 6

CHaPteR1 AbOUT ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND ERFF 7

1.1 DEFININg ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH 7

1.2 THE NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH 7

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH FUNDINg IN THE UK 7

1.4 THE ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH FUNDERS’ FORUM (ERFF) 7

1.5 ERFF’S AIMS 8

1.6 ERFF’S MEMbERSHIp AND WORK 8

CHaPteR2 CONTExT OF THE ANAlySIS 9

2.1 THE AIMS OF THE ERFF RESEARCH DATAbASE AND THIS ANAlySIS 9

2.2 THE SCOpE OF THE DATAbASE AND ANAlySIS 9

2.3 SETTINg THE RESUlTS IN CONTExT 10

CHaPteR3 HOW THE ANAlySIS WAS CARRIED OUT 11

3.1 DATA COllECTION, SElECTION AND ORgANISATION 11

3.2 ClASSIFyINg THE DATA TO ENAblE ANAlySIS 11

3.3 CAlCUlATINg THE SpEND ON A TOpIC 12

3.4 THE ANAlySIS 13

CHaPteR4 RESUlTS OF THE ANAlySIS 15

4.1 UNDERSTANDINg THE RESUlTS 15

4.2 RESEARCH INTERESTS OF ERFF’S MEMbERS 17

4.3 ERFF MEMbERS’ DIRECT SpEND ON ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg 19

4.4 SpEND ON MAjOR ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH pRIORITIES 23

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�

4.5 FUNDAMENTAl UNDERSTANDINg, pROblEMS AND SOlUTIONS 28

4.6 bASIC UNDERSTANDINg, pROblEMS AND SOlUTIONS WITHIN pRIORITy AREAS 32

4.7 TRAININg IN ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH 34

4.8 DRIVERS OF ENVIRONMENTAl CHANgE 36

4.9 THE ENVIRONMENTAl DOMAINS OF RESEARCH 38

4.10 THE SpECTRUM OF RESEARCH FROM pURE TO ApplIED 40

4.11 THE pRIMARy pURpOSES OF pUblIC FUNDINg 42

CHaPteR5 SUMMARy OF RESUlTS 46

CHaPteR6 REVIEW OF THE pROjECT AND NExT STEpS 48

aPPendIX1 THE DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH 49

aPPendIX2 THE ERFF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH ClASSIFICATION SCHEME 51

aPPendIX3 THE CAlCUlATION OF SpEND 54

aPPendIX4 DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAl pRIORITy AREAS 57

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

�

The environmental research database was developed and analysed, and this report written, by the Environment Research Funders’ Forum (ERFF) Secretariat under the guidance of ERFF members. We would like to thank the staff of all the member organisations who provided details of their research for inclusion in the database, and who invested time and effort in collating and preparing data and advising on many aspects of the project from start to finish, including commenting on the draft report. Detailed guidance was given by members of the ERFF database project board, and the classification of projects was carried out by a team of freelance coders working under the direction of the project manager.

We should also like to thank Dr janet Valentine and colleagues at the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, and Dr Aoife Regan, previously of the National Cancer Research Institute, who generously shared the knowledge they had gained in running similar projects and provided an excellent model for ERFF to follow.

The following people have been most closely involved in the project, although there are many others who have also contributed to its successful outcome:

RESEARCH DATAbASE pROjECT bOARDDr Mary barkham (ERFF Secretary)Dr Chris Gordon (Met Office)Ms Hazel jeffery (NERC)Dr Helen jones (Scottish Executive)Dr Kate perry (Defra)Mr Neil Veitch (Environment Agency for England and Wales)Dr beverley Thomas (bbSRC)

CODINg TEAMMs june graham, MScMs Rachel Hemingway, MScMs Zana juppenlatz, Mphil, llMDr Macarena MataDr Sarah Watson-jones

pROjECT MANAgERMrs Marion bartholomew, MSc (ERFF Secretariat)

ACKNOWlEDgEMENTS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�

This report marks the end of the first stage of an ongoing project which aims to help the principal public funders of environmental research in the UK to maximise the coherence and effectiveness of the country’s research efforts in this field. The analytic tools developed in this project will enable funders to identify gaps and overlaps, and to assess the appropriateness of the resources devoted to different areas and research themes.

The project has developed a new framework for classifying environmental research which provides the flexibility and power to address a wide range of questions. This has been used to assemble a database of the environmental research projects funded in 2004-05 by the 12 then members of the Environment Research Funders’ Forum (ERFF). This report describes the results of an initial strategic analysis of the nearly 6000 projects in the database, which represent the majority of publicly-funded environmental research in that year.

ERFF members spent over £260 million on environmental research and £23 million on environmental research training in 2004-05. These were the direct costs of the projects alone. The additional costs of maintaining research infrastructure are likely to take the total cost of environmental research by these organisations to over £500 million.

Of 12 environmental research priorities examined in this analysis, most money was spent on research on natural resources, on farming, fisheries, food, forestry and land use, and on climate change. pollution, the marine and coastal environment, the freshwater environment, biodiversity and conservation, and natural hazards also attracted a significant amount of funding. Relatively little public money was identified as having been spent on waste, the specifically environmental aspects of energy1, flooding and flood defence, and the environmental aspects of human health2.

These areas vary widely in diversity, and it is not obvious what profile of relative spend should be expected. ERFF will address this question over coming months.

The distribution of spend on environmental research training closely matched the distribution of research spend over the 12 priority areas. This implies that members were providing training in the areas of greatest research activity. In order to ensure the right balance of environmental research training to meet future research requirements, ERFF will need to consider likely future environmental research priorities as well as those currently being addressed. This is being taken forward in other ERFF work.

The new ERFF database classifies projects in five dimensions: Environmental Pressures, Impacts, Consequences and Solutions (EpICS), Domain, Drivers, Frascati and primary purpose.

The EpICS dimension divides research by its purpose, into:

n improving fundamental understanding of the Environment

n studying pressures and Impacts on the environment

n studying the Consequences of environmental problems for the living world, and

n seeking Solutions to environmental problems (and making environmental improvements).

For ERFF as a whole, the largest share (half) of research spend was on research to improve fundamental understanding of the environment and environmental processes. A quarter of spend was on research seeking solutions to environmental problems. Of this, most was spent on seeking ways to prevent environmental problems from arising, or to reduce their extent. Work on pressures and impacts on

ExECUTIVE SUMMARy

1 There is a very large public spend on energy research in total, a high proportion of which will have environmental effects.2 Only health research with a direct link to the environment was included.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

�

ExECUTIVE SUMMARy

the environment, and on the consequences of these for the living world, each accounted for about 10% of total research spend.

Of course, these different purposes are closely interlinked, and many research projects address more than one of them.

Analysis of the research by its environmental Domain showed that the largest share was about the living world (38%). About 14% of spend was on research related to water (including ice), about 13% related to the lithosphere (rocks and soil) and a further 13% to the atmosphere, climate and weather systems. Work on developing research instruments and methods (including modelling techniques) formed a part of many projects and accounted for 21% of the total spending on projects.

Analysis by Drivers showed that nearly 18% of environmental research spending was associated with environmental changes caused by agriculture, horticulture or forestry3. About 7% of spend was on changes arising from energy use. Another 3% of spend was on projects where fishing and aquaculture were responsible for environmental changes, and transport, the utilities, extractive and manufacturing industries, energy production, and construction each accounted for between 1% and 2% of spend. Other specific sectors together accounted for about a further 2% of spend. About 30% of spend was on research where no specific driver of environmental change could be identified or where there were a large number of drivers. The remainder of research spending, about 30% of the total, was on research into natural processes with no economic sector driver.

Frascati codes applied to each project showed that ERFF research as a whole was fairly evenly spread across the range from pure basic research to experimental development, with the highest spend (32%) on strategic applied

research. Relatively little (7%) was spent on experimental development. Individual profiles on this pure – applied dimension for each ERFF member showed how their individual research patterns fitted into the picture as a whole.

In terms of the government’s primary purpose in funding environmental research, the majority of research spend by ERFF as a whole was in general support for science (55%) or in support of policy (30%), with 9% on technology support and 4% on research into the better provision of government services. Profiles for individual ERFF members show widely differing patterns of primary purpose.

These results as a whole are generally consistent with our expectations, although they do raise some questions. For example, there is now a very large public spend on energy research, and we know that even in 2004-05 this was substantially larger than the amount we have included in our analysis. We will be examining whether more of this should be included in future.

Overall, the results give confidence in the classification framework and the database, and their ability to support further analysis and future research planning. They also encourage us to develop the database further, bring it (and keep it) up to date, and make it more widely available as an information resource. This work will be taken forward during the 2007-10 ERFF work programme. Further, more detailed, analysis will also be carried out by and on behalf of ERFF members over the coming months, and the strategic analysis is likely to be repeated on updated data in about three years time, as the foundation of a new strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis.

3 includes agriculture, horticulture or forestry worldwide

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�

FOREWORD

pROFESSOR SIR HOWARD DAlTON

MR STEVE KIllEEN

We are delighted to present this first comprehensive overview of the environmental research funded by ERFF members – the majority of the UK’s publicly funded environmental research.

This report represents the culmination of work which began in late 2003, when the forum members agreed to establish a single database of all their environmental research activities to make this analysis possible.

It has taken much time and effort to collect, organise, categorise and analyse the information from nearly 6000 projects for 2004-05 alone. This represents over £280m of direct spend on research and research training.

Along with the database a new environmental classification scheme was designed, to enable the analysis. Using this, the projects have all been categorised in several different ways, so using one set of categories we can see, for example, that in 2004-05 over half of the resources were devoted to the fundamental understanding of environmental processes, and over a quarter were spent on seeking solutions to environmental problems.

With the development of the database and the classification scheme we have, for the first time, a set of tools for assessing overall public spending on environmental research at project level. The results presented here give us a baseline with which future analyses can be compared.

This report is an overview only, but in the coming months more detailed analyses will be carried out; these will enable us to identify gaps and overlaps, and work towards our goal of maximising the coherence and effectiveness of UK environmental research funding. In doing this we will need to

address the question What resources should be devoted to these various types of research?.

The database has enormous potential, also, as a source of information about individual projects. For example, it will enable ERFF members to check what environmental research has recently been, or is being, carried out about a particular issue, or to discover more easily which researchers or organisations are likely to be able to provide information or carry out further research on a topic.

The potential for further development of the database and for its use, both to allow more detailed analysis and as a source of information for individual ERFF members and others, is immense, and this work will be one of the main activities which ERFF will be taking forward during its next three-year delivery plan (2007-2010). The delivery plan, together with a progress report on ERFF’s first three years of operation, are available as a separate document, ERFF Report 01.

We hope that you find this report interesting and useful, and that you continue to engage with ERFF in our future work plans.

professor Sir Howard DaltonChief Scientific Adviser, DefraChair of ERFF 2004-07

Mr Steve KilleenHead of Science, Environment AgencyChair of ERFF 2007-10

Dear Colleagues

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

�

CHaPteR1: AbOUT ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND ERFF

1.1defInIngenVIRonmentalReseaRCH

There are many definitions of environmental science or environmental research and usually we do not need to consider the precise boundaries of the term. For this analysis we have needed to define more precisely what we would include and what we would exclude. broadly, we have included research which is about any of the following:

n the inanimate natural world

n the interactions of living things with the inanimate natural world

n the interactions of living things with other species of living things

n living things or man-made materials or products where the prime aim or the substantial result is to reduce adverse impacts on the environment, or promote positive environmental benefits.

Appendix 1 describes in more detail how we have dealt with projects at the boundary of this basic definition. We discuss what we mean by research in section 2.2.

1.2tHeneedfoRenVIRonmentalReseaRCH

Environmental research is a cornerstone for sustainable development and is absolutely essential to sustain the economic prosperity and quality of life of UK citizens and global society. Environmental research helps to deliver security and resilience through understanding of environmental services and threats to these. It supports evidence-based policy, and an informed debate about the choices we face in managing our interactions with, and impacts on, the environment. Without it, we run the risk of endangering the Earth’s ability to support diverse life forms, including, ultimately, our own.

1.3enVIRonmentalReseaRCHfUndIngIntHeUk

public money from UK taxpayers is used to fund environmental research in three main ways:

n funding research and research training in universities and other research institutions via the UK Science budget, administered by the research councils, and via block grants to universities, administered by the Higher Education Funding Councils4

n underpinning government policy via the research budgets of government departments and of the devolved administrations (the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly government)

n as the foundation of regulatory and operational activities via the research budgets of government agencies such as the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency.

Environmental research is also funded by industry and by non-governmental organisations such as charities and other non-profitmaking organisations. UK researchers may also be in receipt of significant funding from overseas sources.

1.4tHeenVIRonmentReseaRCHfUndeRs’foRUm(eRff)

ERFF is a partnership of the main public sector funders of environmental research. It was established in 2002 when these bodies recognised the need for better coordination of the environmental research activities of the many organisations that fund or use environmental research in the UK. While much coordination and collaboration were already occurring between individual organisations, there was no single body to bring them together.

4 The Higher Education Funding Councils are not currently members of ERFF.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�

1.5eRff’saIms

ERFF’s goal is to maximise the coherence and effectiveness of UK environmental research funding, ensuring that an effective portfolio of activity is provided, from curiosity-driven research at one end of the spectrum, through policy-related research, to applied and operational research at the other. This joined-up approach to environmental research strategy will give funders a more coherent picture of their specific contribution, and will allow them to identify and target areas of synergy, gaps and UK priorities for environmental research.

ERFF itself does not fund environmental research.

1.6eRff’smembeRsHIPandwoRk

ERFF has around a dozen main members and several corresponding members. The research analysed for this report was funded by the organisations who were main members of ERFF during 2004-05:

n biotechnology & biological Sciences Research Council (bbSRC)

n Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

n Department for International Development (DFID)

n Department for Transport (DfT)

n Environment Agency for England and Wales (EA)

n Engineering & physical Sciences Research Council (EpSRC)

n Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)

n Met Office (Met Office)

n Medical Research Council (MRC)

n Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

n Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs Department5 (SEERAD)

n Scottish Environment protection Agency (SEpA).

Other organisations who were corresponding members at this time or who have joined more recently include:

n Forestry Commission

n Food Standards Agency

n Health and Safety Executive

n joint Nature Conservation Committee

n Natural England

n Welsh Assembly government.

ERFF recognises that it cannot achieve its goal alone. To this end it works with other forums and organisations including the global Environmental Change Committee, the Sustainable Development Research Network, and the UK biodiversity Research Advisory group, as well as organisations representing the environmental industries, such as the Environmental Industries Commission and the joint Department for business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (bERR)/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Environmental Industries Sector Knowledge Team. For each major activity, ERFF also considers how to engage with a broader range of stakeholders.

ERFF has a Secretariat of two full-time and two part-time staff. It also uses consultants and secondees to deliver parts of the ERFF work programme. Work included in the ERFF programmes from 2004 to 2010 is described in ERFF Report 01: ERFF progress report 2004-07 and delivery plan 2007-10. The Secretariat and the work programmes are funded by member organisations.

1: AbOUT ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND ERFF

5 Now no longer a separate department; referred to simply as the Scottish Executive

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

�

CHaPteR2: CONTExT OF THE ANAlySIS

2.1tHeaImsoftHeeRffReseaRCHdatabaseandtHIsanalYsIs

In 2002, ERFF commissioned an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) to environmental research in the UK6, to serve as a baseline for determining the priorities for the forum. This work demonstrated that it was impossible to identify accurately the total spend on environmental research in the UK, or to get a clear indication of what was funded across organisations in key priority areas such as climate change.

The report of the SWOT analysis made eight recommendations, one of which was that ERFF should develop a database of current activities in environmental research. Analysis of its contents would provide the first accurate overview of environmental research in the UK. ERFF adopted this recommendation as one of the key priorities in its first three-year work plan and agreed to develop a database containing project-level information about environmental research funded by its main member organisations. The members saw this as essential for ERFF to be able to achieve its main objective. A project manager was appointed in April 2005 to take this work forward.

2.2tHesCoPeoftHedatabaseandanalYsIs

In brief, the database includes:

n investigatory work with a defined research objective

n postgraduate training in environmental research

n dissemination of research results via reports and workshops

n costs directly associated with individual projects.

It does not include the costs of maintaining research infrastructure or general administrative overhead costs.

The research included in this first analysis:

n received funding during the year 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (the most recent complete year of data available at the start of the project)

n was supported by UK funders but may have taken place anywhere in the world.

In relation to its total sphere of interest, ERFF defines ‘research’ as research and associated monitoring, survey, policy, regulation and training. The research database, and therefore the analysis and this report, excludes long-term monitoring and routine regulation. A separate database of monitoring activities has been set up, and an initial report on monitoring (ERFF Report 02: Strategic analysis of UK environmental monitoring activity: Summary report) is available. This summarises the results of an initial analysis of the monitoring database.7 ERFF is currently developing a UK monitoring strategy, and the results of this further work will be published in due course.

The research database and this analysis include investigatory work with a defined research objective, whether it is purely for the sake of acquiring new knowledge or understanding, or is in support of policy or regulation. They also include training towards higher degrees in environmental research (doctor of philosophy or masters’ degrees). This will enable ERFF to assess how the numbers of trainees in key areas of environmental research relate to likely future need. Results for research and for training are reported separately, except where otherwise specified.

Research results are of no practical value unless the people who could use them are aware that they exist. Most ERFF members therefore fund dissemination activities in addition to the research itself. In some instances research project funding is expected also to cover dissemination activities such as preparing reports or holding workshops; in others, these activities

6 The report of the study is available at www.erff.org.uk/reports/reports/reportdocs/swotreport.asp7 �� more detailed report of this work is also available at�� more detailed report of this work is also available at www.erff.org.uk/about/organisation/workgroup/rescoor-envmon.asp

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0

may be funded separately. because it is not possible to separate out dissemination funding for all ERFF projects it has been included in the database and in the analysis for consistency.

Although all the research included in the analysis is supported by UK funders, the work itself may take place anywhere in the world, or indeed in space. For example, NERC funds the british Antarctic Survey, whose research takes place at five research stations in the Antarctic and on the island of South georgia.

The ERFF research database has been set up initially to include environmental research that received funding in the financial year 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. This was no trivial task; over 16,000 individual records were collected from the 12 main members and examined, and over 5700 of these were finally included in the analysis.

The spend figures are, as nearly as possible, just the direct expenditure on projects during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Infrastructure and overhead costs, including any administrative costs not directly associated with an individual project, have not been included. Infrastructure and overhead costs are for such things as: vessels, aircraft, satellites, sensors and instruments (if not bought specifically for the project and included in the direct project budget), other equipment, computing facilities, laboratories, other buildings, costs of administrative, management and support staff (if not dedicated to an individual project and included in the main project budget), and other overhead costs.

2.3settIngtHeResUltsInConteXt

This report presents an analysis of the environmental research portfolios of its 12 main members during 2004-05, and gives a snapshot view of environmental research during that year, demonstrating the distinct

roles of members and illustrating how the UK public sector environmental research portfolio was shared between them at that time.

In order to understand the implications of the analysis correctly, it is important to appreciate that:

n A high proportion of research by most ERFF members is carried out within themed programmes which run over several years (normally in the range 3 to 10 years). When one programme ends and a new one starts there may be major changes in the range of topics being studied. because of this, no single year’s research portfolio can be regarded as necessarily being typical for all funders. For example, in 2004-05 DFID was just coming to the end of a major 10-year programme of research on natural resources. This programme included a significant spend on research which would be counted as environmental, but by 2004-05 the programme was running down and the next programme had not yet started. DFID’s environmental research spend in 2004-05 is not likely, therefore, to be typical of either earlier or later years.

n Since 2004-05, most ERFF members have started new research programmes or have them in planning and about to start. A low spend during 2004-05 on what might seem to be an important current topic does not necessarily mean that the current level of research in that topic is small. For example, there has been a major increase in research council funding for energy research under the research councils’ Energy programme.

n UK researchers are also able to obtain environmental research funding from other sources (e.g. EU, charities, industry etc), and ERFF members will usually take this other funding into account when planning their own research programmes.

2: CONTExT OF THE ANAlySIS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

CHaPteR3: HOW THE ANAlySIS WAS CARRIED OUT

3.1dataColleCtIon,seleCtIonandoRganIsatIon

Collecting together information about all the environmental research projects funded by each ERFF member during 2004-05 into a single database, with a common format, was the first step in making the analysis possible. All members of ERFF fund environmental research, but for some this is only a minority of the research they support, while for others it is a major part, or the whole. A data brief was prepared which described the scope of the research considered to be environmental for this purpose, to assist members who also support research on other areas. Members supplied project information which met this description; some members also supplied information about other types of research, or about the whole of their research programmes.

In total, information on about 16,000 projects was provided. The information about each project included a title, reference number and (where possible) project description or abstract, the start and end dates and project spend figures, any other information such as keywords or classification information applied by the funder, and contact information for the project manager, leader or supervisor.

The data was received in a variety of formats; almost all was provided in electronic form but the file types, layouts and details provided varied from one member to another, depending on the information they held and the form in which they held it. Data from each member was reorganised into a common format and layout so that it could be examined easily.

Where projects submitted by a member included research other than environmental research, these were sifted manually to identify those which should be included in the database and analysis.

As a result of these procedures, which took several months to complete, over 6000 projects were identified as being appropriate to include in the database. During the coding process (see section 3.2 below) a small proportion of these were identified as being expenditure on general administrative support or other types of infrastructure or overhead expenditure and were excluded from this analysis. Over 5700 projects went on to be included in the results given in Chapter 4.

3.2ClassIfYIngtHedatatoenableanalYsIs

Environmental research is unlike many other research areas in that it cuts across a large number of disciplines and it has no standard classification scheme. It is impossible to analyse the large volume of data collected without applying some form of classification to each of the items, so as part of this project it was necessary to design a classification scheme for environmental research.

Although ERFF members were able to describe in advance several of the ways in which they wanted to analyse the data, it was likely there would be other aspects which would interest them later but which they could not identify in the early stages of the project. The classification scheme therefore needed to provide flexibility, so that later questions could be answered by combining categories in different ways.

A five-dimensional scheme (with additional keywords) was gradually developed with advice from the project board and other ERFF members. This is illustrated in Appendix 2.Briefly, the five dimensions used in the scheme are:

n Frascati coding: a standard European scheme for categorising research on the pure – applied dimension

n primary purpose coding: a standard scheme used by the UK government

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

to categorise research by the government’s purpose in funding it

n Driver: a new dimension designed for use in this analysis. Most of the drivers identified are industrial or economic sectors which are responsible for, or have influence over, the environmental change being investigated. The list is based loosely on the Standard Industrial Classification but is much less detailed, particularly for those sectors which have relatively little direct influence on the environment. Other drivers include generic activities which occur in all sectors, such as energy use. A natural processes “Driver” has also been included so that all projects can be coded on this dimension, although it is recognised that natural processes are not drivers in the same sense as human activities.

n Domain: a new dimension designed for use in this analysis. It refers to the environmental domain or domains which are the principal subject(s) of the research – the physical part of the environment involved, such as deep seas, forests or mammals.

n EpICS (Environmental pressures and Impacts, Consequences and Solutions): a new dimension designed for use in this analysis. This relates a project to one or more detailed environmental topic areas within a hierarchy organised by the purpose of the research; it is described in more detail later and is illustrated in Appendix 2.

There are a few concepts which it is difficult or impossible to encapsulate within this, or perhaps any, generally-applicable scheme. Examples are work related to climate change, or work related to sustainable consumption and production, or integrated catchment science. A small number of keywords have therefore been included, in addition to the main dimensions of the scheme, to enable some particular analyses to be done which would otherwise be difficult.

The scheme was tested by several different ERFF members on a sample of projects and found to be generally satisfactory. Inevitably some types of project are harder to classify than others and during the course of coding (classifying) the data several possible improvements to the scheme have been noted. It will be fully reviewed before the next main tranche of data is coded to bring the database up to date.

Designing and testing the classification scheme took place over a period of a few months, in parallel with collecting and organising the project information ready for coding.

Coding the 6000+ projects on all five dimensions of the full scheme was a major task which was performed by a team of five suitably qualified and trained coders working part-time in their own homes over approximately ten months. Significant further time has since been spent in quality checking the codings.

3.3CalCUlatIngtHesPendonatoPIC

Environmental research is not neatly divided into mutually exclusive packets so that one project is all about biodiversity and another is all about the marine environment, whilst a third is about the effects of climate change. How should we allocate the cost of a project which is about the effects of climate change on biodiversity in the marine environment?

There is simply no right answer to this question. We can only try to use a reasonable way of allocating spend and explain what we have done. Others, including all the individual ERFF member organisations, will probably have used different methods and will have arrived at different answers. It is therefore important for readers of this report to understand that the absolute financial figures shown here are unlikely to agree exactly with those published, for different

3: HOW THE ANAlySIS WAS CARRIED OUT

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


purposes, elsewhere. Individual figures have only limited use in isolation or for comparison with others calculated using other approaches. They are intended, rather, to enable understanding of the relative resources being devoted to different topics, and to see which ERFF members are devoting most resources to a particular topic or type of research. In looking at the results in Chapter 4 attention should be paid to the patterns of spend and the relative allocations rather than the actual sums of money reported.

For most of the analyses reported here, the spend on each project has been divided equally between the areas of primary focus of the project, for each dimension of the classification scheme. This is described in more detail in Appendix 3. For the analysis by environmental priority areas only, the whole project spend was included in each of the areas analysed.

3.4tHeanalYsIs

The complexity of the full classification scheme allows an almost infinite number of analyses to be carried out on how environmental research funds have been spent.

For this first analysis we have looked at the major subdivisions within each of the five dimensions of the scheme, together with a dozen topics which ERFF members have identified as environmental priority areas. These are the analyses whose results are presented in this report. Over the coming months we expect to carry out more detailed analyses to answer specific questions posed by ERFF as a whole and by ERFF members individually.

looking at the major subdivisions within the five main dimensions allows us to see:

n whether there appears to be an appropriate spread of environmental research on the pure – applied dimension, through

to experimental development, and how this is divided between research councils, government departments and agencies8

n how public spending on environmental research was divided up between general support for research, research designed to support government policy, to support technology, or to aid technology transfer, research designed to improve government services, and support for postgraduate taught courses in environmental research

n which industrial or economic sectors were driving the environmental changes being investigated during 2004-05

n which environmental domains (rocks and soil, water, air, living things, climate systems or domain-free areas such as instrumentation and research methods) received most research attention

n how environmental research spending was divided between:

p improving our fundamental understanding of the Earth and of natural environmental processes

p investigating human pressures and impacts on the environment

p investigating the consequences for the living world of these environmental processes, pressures and impacts

p investigating solutions to environmental problems (and environmental improvements).

In later more detailed analyses we will be able to look into any of these issues for any chosen subset of research.

by mapping environmental priority areas on to the detailed classification scheme we can assess the relative spend allocated to each of them. The priority areas analysed so far are:

8 Met Office is a trading fund rather than an agency

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


n biodiversity and conservation

n climate change

n energy (only in relation to the environment – not all energy research)

n farming, fisheries, food, forestry and land use

n flooding and flood defence

n freshwater environment

n human health (in relation to the environment)

n marine and coastal environment

n natural resources

n natural risks and hazards

n pollution

n waste.

Appendix 4 describes what has been included in the definitions of each of these priority areas.

Taking the analysis of these areas one step further, we have looked into the composition of research on each of these topics in relation to the main

EpICS categories of fundamental understanding, investigating pressures and impacts, investigating consequences, and investigating solutions.

In future work we will look into these areas, and into other topics, in more detail and will be able to analyse them in relation to any of the aspects listed earlier in this section.

by looking in detail at the research spend within each of the subsets which we can define using the multi-dimensional classification system, we will be able to identify areas which appear to be poorly covered. We can then assess whether there are good reasons for this, or whether it indicates a research gap which should be addressed in future research programmes.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

CHaPteR4: RESUlTS OF THE ANAlySIS

4.1UndeRstandIngtHeResUlts

The analysis provides a base-line review of the directly-funded environmental research activities of the major public funders of UK environmental research in the year 2004-05. Analysis of the research in the database can provide valuable information on the relative direct spending by these government departments, agencies and research councils on different environmental research areas. However, in addition to the points made in section 2.3, it is important to bear in mind the following when interpreting the results. A few of these issues have been mentioned in earlier sections.

n Researchnotincluded. The database does not include environmental research expenditure by industry, by non-profit-making organisations or by smaller public funders who are not main members of ERFF. It does not include funding from the EU or overseas sources. Nor does it include expenditure on infrastructure or overheads associated with, and essential as support for, environmental research, even for main members of ERFF. It should not, therefore, be interpreted as giving a picture of the whole of environmental research spending funded by UK funders although it does cover the majority of public funding.

n Researchwithmultipleobjectives. An environmental research project may have several objectives. Coders were instructed to give primary codes to each project according to its main objective, and the majority of the analysis is based on these primary codes. The results therefore reflect just the main thrust of the research included in the database.

n allocatingspendforaprojectacrosscategories. For most of the analysis, the total spend on a project has been split between the primary codes given to it. When looking at the analysis results for a single dimension of the classification scheme the total spend shown for all the categories in that dimension

is equal to the total project spend in the database. The spend shown for a particular category is made up of some share of the spend for each of the projects which have been given one or more codes in that category.

n allocatingindividualprojectspendtoenvironmentalpriorityareas. For the analysis of the environmental priority areas the calculation becomes more complicated, as more than one dimension of the classification scheme may be involved in their definition. Also, the priority areas are not mutually exclusive. A single project can easily be about more than one of them – for example, about both biodiversity and climate change, or about both pollution and the marine environment. For this part of the analysis only, therefore, the full project spend has been included in the results for each priority area. because of this, there is a significant amount of double counting, and the total spend on all the priority areas together is about twice as high as the total project spend in the database.

n spendvaluesintheresultsarerelative,notabsolute. From the two preceding paragraphs it should be evident that the actual spend shown for each category in the results is not precise – it depends heavily on how the project spend has been allocated between codes as well as on how codes have been given to projects. Other organisations, including ERFF member organisations looking at some of the same basic project information, will have used different ways of estimating how much they are spending on some of the main priority areas. because of this, we would not expect the spend figures from our analysis to agree precisely with figures produced by others. However, by applying the same classification scheme to projects from all the main ERFF members and by using a consistent method of allocating project codes and splitting spend between them, we should, within our analysis, get an accurate picture of the relative

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

spend on each of the areas. This is true whether these are within a single dimension or whether they are priority areas defined in some cases across multiple dimensions.

n morerecentresearchmayhavechangedthepicture. When this project was started, the most recent project information available was that for 2004-05. With essentially a staff of one (plus part-time coders) to carry out the majority of the work, it has taken approximately two years to reach this point. During this time all ERFF members will have funded further projects and most have started on, or planned, new programmes of work. Others will have finished. If an area of current interest is shown as having a relatively low spend in 2004-05, it does not necessarily mean that the current level of research in that area is still small.

n asingleyearofdatamaynotberepresentative. because the analysis is based on a single year of data, it will not be representative of typical spend across different categories for all funders. Some were undergoing major changes of research programme during 2004-05.

n spendisaninputmeasure,notanoutputmeasure. Spend is a rather poor measure of research across different areas. Some types of work are inherently much more expensive to carry out than others, and an input measure like spend gives no indication either of the quality of the work done or the value of the results. However, it is currently the only realistic measure available for comparing the attention given to different topics, and it is still better than no measure at all.

n spendbetweendifferenttypesoforganisationisnotcomparable–especiallybeforeautumn2005. Spending on research is organised in different ways in each ERFF member organisation. because of this, the costs of research included in the database are not

entirely comparable. One difference between some organisations and others, particularly in 2004-05, is in relation to the introduction of full economic costing (FEC) in universities. Until September 2005 the core funding which higher education institutions received from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (or parallel bodies for Wales and Scotland) acted in effect as a partial subsidy for the cost of research, and grants made to universities by the research councils did not cover the full research costs. However, government departments did pay universities the full economic costs of their research at this time. Therefore, the research council costs included in this analysis are not directly comparable with government departments’ and agencies’ costs. From September 2005 this situation has changed: research council grants are now intended to cover 80% of the notional full economic costs of the research (and government departments are instructed to pay at least 100% of the notional full economic costs).

Some attempt has been made to establish the relative costs to research councils before and after the introduction of FEC, but as this is not conclusive we do not propose any specific figure here. Different research councils have reported that since the introduction of FEC they are now paying in the range of 18% to 45% more for university research than previously. The size of the increase depends on the type of work concerned, as some types have much higher overhead costs than others.

n anoteaboutsePa-fundedresearch. All research funded by SEpA in 2004-05 was carried out in collaboration with a range of other funders and was managed by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research (SNIFFER). Information about these projects was kindly provided by SNIFFER9. There is no way of identifying SEPA’s financial

4: RESUlTS OF THE ANAlySIS

9 Project costs from SNIFFER were provided as bands rather than exact figures

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


contribution to individual projects. The projects for which SNIFFER has provided information have therefore been included in the analysis in their entirety and with their full project spend. Although this means that SEpA’s total environmental research spend has been overstated, the relative spend on different categories and priority areas is correctly represented.

4.2ReseaRCHInteRestsofeRff’smembeRs

To set their environmental research spending in context, the following is a brief overview of the responsibilities and research interests of the ERFF members included in this analysis.

bbsRC Funds research in the non-medical life sciences through universities and through its own research institutes. The main areas covered currently are agri-food, animal sciences, biochemistry and cell biology, biomolecular sciences, engineering and biological systems, genes and developmental biology, and plant and microbial sciences. Only bbSRC research which has a clear link with the environment or environmental problems has been included in this analysis.

defra The government department responsible for protecting the environment, for food including agriculture and fisheries, and for the countryside. Defra’s research relating to the environment, including climate change and environmental aspects of agriculture and fisheries and the countryside, is included. Research on animal health and welfare and on economic or commercial aspects of agriculture, fisheries and the countryside has generally been excluded unless there is a clear link to an environmental issue.

dfId The government department responsible for managing britain’s aid to poor countries. Runs a large research programme principally aimed at alleviating poverty but which includes research related to the environment and the alleviation of environmental problems. DFID’s research whose substantial result is likely to illuminate or alleviate environmental issues or problems is included in the analysis, even if this is not their prime aim.

dft The government department responsible for road, rail, sea and air transport including, through the Highways Agency, responsibility for roads, and, through the Marine and Coastguard Agency, responsibilities for ports and shipping. Research on the environmental impacts of roads and all transport systems is included. Research on non-environmental aspects is excluded.

ea By definition, all Environment Agency research is related to the environment and is included. Work which forms part of day-to-day regulatory activities is not regarded as research and is excluded.

ePsRC Funds research in the engineering and physical sciences. Although little of this involves investigating the environment directly, EpSRC-funded research is a vital component in the overall portfolio, as it includes research on engineering and physical science solutions to environmental problems. particularly relevant areas include energy, water, waste, flood defences and coastal defences. Only work with a specific focus on environmental aspects has been included.

esRC Funds research in the social sciences. Whilst still only a minority of ESRC

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

research, the importance of economic, social and behavioural aspects of environmental problems, and particularly of the potential solutions to them, is becoming increasingly recognised. The council has identified Energy, Environment and Climate Change as one of its key research challenges over 2005-2010.

Met Office The Met Office is not a research funder in its own right but is funded by the Ministry of Defence. On behalf of the Ministry it runs the government meteorological research programme (nearly £4 million per year) which is included in this analysis. The Met Office also carries out a major climate prediction research programme which is funded under contract from Defra (around £11 million per year). The details of this programme were provided by the Met Office but the spend figures associated with it are included in the analysis as part of Defra’s research spend.

mRC Funds research aimed at improving human health through grants to universities and to its own network of Units and Institutes. The council’s remit covers the spectrum from basic discovery science through to clinical and public health research. Only MRC-supported activity that is directly linked with environmental factors has been included in this analysis.

neRC Funds research and training on the natural environment in universities and in its own research centres through its share of the UK government science

budget. NERC has the largest spend on environmental research of all the ERFF members, and its remit is to fund science that increases knowledge and understanding of the natural world. It thus provides the foundation on which researchers funded by other ERFF members or by NERC can draw when addressing real-world environmental problems. All NERC-funded research is included in the analysis.

scottishexecutive Research included in the analysis is that which was formerly sponsored by the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD). This department held broadly similar responsibilities in Scotland to those held by Defra in other parts of the UK, covering agriculture and fisheries, food, the environment and rural affairs. It also acted in part like a research council, providing funding to a number of research centres. The majority of the research funded by SEERAD was strategic in nature. The Scottish Executive has recently been reorganised so that SEERAD no longer exists as a separate department.

sePa SEpA is the Scottish equivalent of the Environment Agency for England and Wales, and, as with EA, all SEpA’s research is included in the analysis. SEpA’s research programme in 2004-05 was managed by SNIFFER as explained above, and the spend figures are the totals for each project from all contributory funders.9


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


4.3eRffmembeRs’dIReCtsPendonenVIRonmentalReseaRCHandtRaInIng

ERFF members spent a total of £263 million on environmental research in 2004-05 and a further £23 million on postgraduate training which can be identified as environmental. These figures exclude the general administrative overhead costs associated with running research programmes and the costs of providing large scale infrastructure facilities for research, such as laboratories and other buildings, ships, aircraft and satellites. The individual figures for each member are given in table1. Note that these are derived in a

completely different way from that used by ERFF members in preparing their own annual accounts and other financial information – for example, by taking a proportion of the total spend or total budget for a research project which spans a longer period. because of this they may be different from ERFF members’ own published research spend figures for 2004-05.

figure1 illustrates the relative size of the environmental research spend of the individual ERFF members. Note that, as explained in section 4.1, the cost basis of research spend may differ from one member to another.

Research Training Total

bbSRC £20.65m £1.42m £22.07m

DEFRA £68.31m £0.04m £68.35m

DFID £7.15m £0.00m £7.15m

DfT £2.38m £0.00m £2.38m

EA £10.26m £0.08m £10.34m

EpSRC £21.20m £0.05m10 £21.25m

ESRC £1.89m £0.25m £2.15m

Met Office £3.67m £0.00m £3.67m

MRC £3.07m £0.00m £3.07m

NERC £109.28m £21.13m £130.41m

SEERAD £13.28m £0.00m £13.28m

SNIFFER for SEpA £2.42m £0.00m £2.42m

Total £263.56m £22.99m £286.55m

10 EPSRC funds postgraduate training largely by means of doctoral training accounts which give universities flexibility in what research is carried out. We do not have details of the research supported by EPSRC in this way for 2004-05.

TAblE 1: DIRECT SpEND ON ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0


It is clear that NERC and Defra are the two largest public spenders on environmental research, accounting between them for about 75% of the environmental research project spend we have been able to identify. This is not surprising, as NERC is the UK’s main agency for funding research and training in environmental science, and Defra is the major government department with overall responsibility for the environment. It is noticeable that the Environment Agency, despite being the leading public body for protecting and improving

the environment in England and Wales, funded only around 3-4% of the total environmental research by ERFF members in 2004-05.

table2 and figure2 give an indication of how the direct environmental research project spend which we have been able to identify and include in the analysis compares with the estimated total direct research spend for each ERFF member in 2004-05.

fIgURe1: DIRECT SpEND ON ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg

bbSRC

Defra

DFIDDfT

EA

EpSRCESRC

Met Office

MRC

NERC

SEERAD

SNIFFER for

SEpA

7.7%

23.9%

2.5%

0.8%

3.6%

7.4%0.7%

1.3%

1.1%

45.5%

4.6% 0.8%

percentages shown in Figure 1 are the percentage share of total environmental research spend included in the analysis, for each member organisation.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


11 EA direct spend in the analysis is greater than its reported total direct research spend probably because project spend figures in the analysis have been calculated as a time-related proportion of the total project commitment rather than actual spend in the year 2004-05.12 EPSRC funds postgraduate training largely by means of doctoral training accounts which give universities flexibility in what research is carried out. We do not have details of the research supported by EPSRC in this way for 2004-05.13 NERC direct research spend in the analysis is greater than its reported total direct research spend because it has been arrived at through a different route, with slightly different definitions of what is included14 SEP��’s contribution to SNIFFER in 2004-05.

Direct Total direct Spend environmental research spend in analysis research as % of spend included total direct in analysis research spend

bbSRC £22.1m £267m 8%

DEFRA £68.4m £152m 45%

DFID £7.2m £149m 5%

DfT £2.4m £45m 5%

EA11 £10.3m £9m11 100%

EpSRC 12 £21.3m £456m 5%

ESRC £2.1m £109m 2%

Met Office £3.7m £7m 51%

MRC £3.1m £187m 2%

NERC13 £130.4m £125m13 100%

SEERAD £13.3m £66m 20%

SEpA 14 £0.2m £0.2m 100%

Total £284m £1592m

table2: ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg AS A pERCENTAgE OF All RESEARCH AND TRAININg

The figures for total direct research spend shown in table2 have largely been drawn from annual reports and accounts of the organisations involved, with some supplementary information from individual ERFF members. It is often not possible to identify expenditure on research with certainty from these sources because of differences in definition and methods of calculation, so the figures in Table 2 should be regarded as

ballpark. There are, therefore, some differences between the figures in this analysis and figures from other sources (e.g., in EA research spend).

Attempts were made to estimate the total cost of environmental research (including infrastructure and overhead costs) in these ERFF member organisations but the results were not judged sufficiently reliable to

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


fIgURe2: pERCENTAgE OF RESEARCH AND TRAININg WHICH WAS ENVIRONMENTAl

bbSRC

Defra

DFID

DfT

EA

EpSRC

ESRC

Met Office

MRC

NERC

SEERAD

SEpA

8% 92%

45% 55%

5% 95%

5% 96%

100%

5% 95%

2% 98%

49%51%

100%

2% 98%

20% 80%

100%

Environmentalresearch

Non-environmentalresearch

publish individual figures here. It seems likely, however, that the total of these costs would be in the order of £500 million or more.

table2 and figure2 show how large a part environmental research plays in the overall research portfolio of each ERFF member organisation. They make an interesting comparison with table1 and figure1, which show how large a part each organisation’s environmental research plays in the total environmental research portfolio

of ERFF members as a whole. As mentioned in section 4.1, however, the amount of money spent on the research is not the only relevant measure. Some members who have only a minority interest in environmental research are likely to be playing a vital part in completing the whole picture.

The following sections show how the overall environmental research portfolio is subdivided in various different ways, and the balance of effort between the different ERFF members.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


4.4sPendonmajoRenVIRonmentalReseaRCHPRIoRItIes

From discussions with all the ERFF members, a list was drawn up of issues which are seen as priority areas in environmental research. Each of these was mapped to the detailed classification scheme so that projects which addressed these issues could be identified. Some of the definitions involved using a combination of codes from different dimensions. For example, research on the marine and coastal environment could be identified by having a domain code for salt water or for deep ocean ecosystems, or by having an EpICS code for tidal waves or coastal erosion (or other codes). appendix4 describes the topics included in each of these priority areas. The spend figures for all the projects identified for each priority area were totalled to give the spend for that priority area. The results for ERFF as a whole are shown in figure3. In interpreting these remember that:

n projects have been coded for what the particular project is primarily about, not for what overall programme it belongs to or what area it might have implications for, unless this is clearly an objective or a major result of the project

n the whole project spend has been included for each priority area to which a project relates. Many projects will relate to more than one priority area, so the total spend for all priority areas is larger than the total spend for all projects; in fact, it is about twice as much. Adding together the spend figures for different priority areas does not necessarily give an accurate idea of their combined spend, as some of the same projects may be included in both areas. The usefulness of the figures lies in comparing the relative spending on different areas rather than in their absolute values.

The total length of each bar in figure3 indicates the total project spend on all the projects related

to that priority area. Within each bar, the different colours represent the project spend by each ERFF member. The final bar shows how much was spent on projects whose codes do not map to any of the priority areas examined.

The results in figure3 show the highest level of funding going into research on natural resources and on farming, fisheries, food, forestry and land use. Climate change attracted the next highest relative spend, followed by pollution, the marine and coastal environment, the freshwater environment, biodiversity and conservation15, natural hazards, then waste, environmental aspects of energy, flooding and flood defence, and environmental aspects of human health.

Having produced these figures, we now seek to understand them. Some care is needed in their interpretation. In addition to all the provisos already mentioned (for example, the difference in cost between different types of research, the different basis on which research council and government department projects were costed, the research in these areas which has started since April 2005 and which is likely to have changed the balance between them), it should be remembered that these priority areas are not equal in:

n scope – some are much more diverse than others

n the degree of understanding of the area that has already been achieved

n the importance and urgency to society of achieving better understanding in the area.

All these things must be borne in mind when considering what it might be appropriate to spend on research in these (and other) areas.

In two areas in particular, there was, and is, other research which has not been included in this analysis. These two areas are:

15 Work on biodiversity and conservation here includes all living organisms, not only wild ones.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


fIgURe3: SpEND ON ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH pRIORITy AREAS – ERFF AS A WHOlE

biodiversity/ conservation

Climate change

Energy

Farming, fisheries, food, forestry, land use

Flooding & flood defence

Freshwater environment

Human health

Marine & coastal environment

Natural resources

Natural hazards

pollution

Waste

Not included in any of above

£33m

£38m

£46m

£68m

£95m

£16m

£11m

£6m

£6m

£104m

£27m

£54m

£46m

bbSR

C

EpSR

CES

RC MRCNER

CDefr

aDFID DfT

SEER

ADEA

Met O

ffice

SEpA

Note: Totals shown for individual priorities cannot be added together to give total spend

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


n energy research, where there was substantial spend in 2004-05 and even higher spend more recently. Although energy research which is clearly linked to environmental factors has been included, there is likely to be other energy research which is relevant.

n health research, where we know that there is research on diseases (e.g., asthma) with multifactorial causes of which environmental factors are one. This type of research was not sufficiently closely linked to the environment for it to be included in the data collected for this analysis.

In these areas we may wish to reconsider the method of data capture and/or the boundaries of inclusion for future work.

The group of projects labelled as “Not included in any of the above” may need some further explanation. projects in this latter group may still be related to one or more of the priority areas. They are likely to be of one of the following types:

n projects whose immediate focus is to gain

greater understanding of a specific natural process. projects like this are unlikely to be included in any priority area because they are not sufficiently closely linked to justify coding for it, even though their ultimate aim may be to address one of the priority areas. For example, a project on the flow of granular material (may lead to better understanding of natural hazards), or on the evolution of complex life cycle strategies in parasites (may lead to better understanding of biodiversity)

n projects addressing other areas which are also regarded as important but which have not been examined in this analysis (e.g., environmental genomics, or e-science)

n projects which are too general in their applications to map to any particular priority (e.g., a project on uncertainty estimation in environmental modelling).

figure4shows the relative spend of the individual ERFF members on these same priority areas.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


fIgURe4: SpEND ON ENVIRONMENTAl pRIORITy AREAS - INDIVIDUAl ERFF MEMbERS

biodiversity/conservation

Climate change

Energy

Farming, fisheries, forestry, land use



Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste

Natural risks & hazards

bbSRC

Defra

DFID

DfT

EA

EpSRC

661 projects

71 projects

46 projects

369 projects

263 projects

256 projects

£50m

£5m

£1.2m

£5m

£10m

£5m £10m £0.6m

£2.5m£25m

£2.5m £5m


Climate change

Energy




Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste



Climate change

Energy




Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste


Note: Totals shown for individual priorities cannot be added together to give total spend

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


52 projects

5 projects

10 projects

1590 projects

167 projects

59 projects

SEpA(SNIFFER)

SEERAD

NERC

MRC

ESRC

Met Office

£2m

£50m

£10m

£2m(SNIFFER)

£300k £600k £25m

£5m

£1.0m£1m

£2m£1m


Climate change

Energy




Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste



Climate change

Energy




Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste



Climate change

Energy




Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

4.5fUndamentalUndeRstandIng,PRoblemsandsolUtIons16

One of the innovative features of the ERFF environmental classification scheme is the dimension for which we use the acronym EpICS. This is a convenient short form to encapsulate four main categories into which environmental research topics can usefully be divided. In order to address the full range of environmental problems we need research information on all four of these categories:

E for basic understanding of the Environment and its processes, including understanding natural hazards such as volcanoes or earthquakes.

pI for human pressures and their Impacts on the environment, such as pollution, depletion of natural resources, or interference in land drainage characteristics by building development.

C for the (mainly human) Consequences of these pressures and impacts, such as illness resulting

from air pollution, or urban flooding resulting from building development in the flood plain.

S for Solutions16 to environmental problems. The Solutions are subdivided into three types:

n solutions which prevent or reduce damage, or further damage, to the environment by acting on the source of the problem; for example, by developing substitutes for fossil fuels, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

n solutions which do not prevent the damage, but work by repairing it in some way, such as researching ways of remediating polluted water or soil

n solutions which neither prevent the damage nor repair it, but work by protecting humans (or other fauna or flora) from its effects, such as research into flood protection measures.

figure5 illustrates the interrelationships between these types of research information.In addition to being subdivided by type, research

fIgURe5: THE EpICS SCHEME - ENVIRONMENTAl pRESSURES, IMpACTS, CONSEqUENCES AND SOlUTIONS

environment and its past, present and future states

Pressures and Impacts on the environment

human Consequences of

pressures and impacts on the environment

solutions, which act on the pressures, the impacts or the

consequences


16 Solutions here includes research on environmental improvements, benefits and services

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


which falls into the Solutions category is also subdivided separately into a large number of detailed environmental application areas. Examples of these are: work on deriving energy from biomass, work on flood protection and relief, and work on habitat conservation and improvement.

And finally, the Solutions category has a third set of subdivisions, by the broad technical nature of the solution. These include new or improved equipment or processes, environmental policy, legal and economic instruments of various sorts, and information services, education and training, amongst others.

Altogether, this gives us a very powerful way of analysing environmental research activity in detail. The EPICS classification

scheme is explained further in Appendix 2.For this first stage analysis, we have looked at the top level EpICS categories in conjunction with the subdivision of Solutions into the three different types of solution. figure6 shows how ERFF members’ environmental research spend was shared between these main categories in 2004-05.

As figure6 shows, the largest share of research spend (over half) was devoted to fundamental understanding of the environment and environmental processes, and the second largest share (over a quarter) to seeking solutions to environmental problems, with about 10% each on investigating pressures and impacts on the environment and investigating the conseqences of these (and the consequences of natural hazards)

fIgURe6: RESEARCH SpEND ON UNDERSTANDINg THE ENVIRONMENT, ON pROblEMS AND ON SOlUTIONS - ERFF AS A WHOlE

54% FUNDAMENTAl UNDERSTANDINg OF

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAl pROCESSES

10% pRESSURES AND IMpACTS ON

THE ENVIRONMENT

9% HUMAN CONSEqUENCES OF

ENVIRONMENTAl pROblEMS

17% pREVENTION OR REDUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAl

pROblEMS

3% REMEDIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAl DAMAgE,

OR ENVIRONMENTAl IMpROVEMENT

7% MITIgATION OF EFFECTS ON THE lIVINg

WORlD OR ADApTATION TO ENVIRONMENTAl

CHANgE

e1

e2

e3

e4a1e4a2e4a3

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0


for the living world. Within research investigating solutions to environmental problems, the largest share (65% of spend on solutions) was spent on seeking ways to prevent environmental problems from arising, or reducing their extent, 25% on mitigating their effects on humans, and 10% on remediating their effects on the environment.

figure7 shows how the whole gamut of environmental research, from fundamental understanding of the environment and its natural processes through to seeking solutions to environmental problems, was covered by different ERFF members. looking in some detail, we see that:

n Research sponsored by neRC and bbsRC was predominantly concerned with establishing fundamentalunderstandingoftheenvironmentanditsnaturalprocesses(codedase1).

Most of the Met Office’s work also fell in this category. Apart from the climate prediction programme (carried out by the Met Office but paid for by Defra and included here as part of Defra’s portfolio), Met Office work included in the database is largely concerned with improving meteorological models.

defra funded a significant core of work on fundamental understanding, and seeRad, which was roughly the Scottish equivalent of Defra but which also acted in part as a research council in Scotland, spent an even higher percentage, around 50%, of its research funds on work to increase fundamental understanding of environmental issues.

n Pressuresontheenvironmentandtheconsequencesofthesefortheenvironmentitself(‘impacts’),codedase2, formed a significant share of environmental research spending for dft,mRC,ea,esRCanddefra.

dft spent around a third of its environmental research spend on this type of research. This arises from their understandable concern with pollution of all sorts arising from traffic and highways.

mRC spending in this category was mainly looking into aspects of pollution as well as its health consequences; the latter share appears under E3.

n ERFF members with a significant share of their environmental research spend devoted to the consequencesofenvironmentalproblemsforthelivingworld(codedase3) were MRC, Defra, Met Office and sePa/snIffeR, with only a marginally smaller proportion being spent by ea and some others.

We have included work on climate change impacts, including intermediate impacts such as the effects on rainfall or ocean currents, in this category, so defra’s climate change programme appears as E3.

The Met Office also does some work on climate change effects as part of the government meteorogical research programme, and this appears as E3 in the Met Office’s own portfolio.

The mRC was the only ERFF member for whom the human consequences of environmental problems formed the majority of its environmental research. This appears entirely reasonable, as health effects in humans are by definition human consequences.

n ERFF members devoting a major part of their environmental research spend to solutionstoenvironmentalproblems(codese4a1,e4a2ande4a3) were dfId (over 80%), snIffeR/sePa (about 70%), ePsRC and esRC (about two thirds each).

dfId’s main purpose is the relief of poverty, but it does appear to be clearly focussed on solutions and the result is that its research related to environmental issues is very much about making improvements.

ePsRC’s role in relation to environmental research is that of provider of engineering and physical sciences know-how, which is largely about finding practical solutions to problems.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


fIgURe7: RESEARCH SpEND ON UNDERSTANDINg THE ENVIRONMENT, ON pROblEMS AND ON SOlUTIONS – INDIVIDUAl MEMbERS

bbSRC Defra DFID

DfT EA EpSRC

ESRC Met Office MRC

NERC SEERAD SNIFFER for SEpA

E1 - FUNDAMENTAl

UNDERSTANDINg

E2 - pRESSU

RES

AND IMpACTS

E3 - HUMAN

CONSEqUENCES

E4A1 - pREVENTION

E4A2 - REMEDIATION

E4A3 - MITIgATION

AND ADApTATION

E1

E1

E1E1E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4A1E4A1

E4A1

E4A1

E4A1

E4A1

E4A1

E4A1

E4A3

E4A3E4A3

E1

E2

E3

E2

E3

E2

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


It is perhaps more surprising to find that esRC’s main focus is on solutions too, but this is clearly appropriate. It seems likely that economic, psychological and sociological factors will play a crucial role in the success or failure of potential technological and policy solutions to the many environmental problems afflicting the world.

Amongst the other ERFF members, ea,defra,dft and seeRad all devoted a third or more of their resources to work on solutions.

For neRC and bbsRC, with their major focus on fundamental understanding, only a relatively small proportion was spent on looking directly for solutions. It is important to point out here, though, that much of their work which is correctly categorised as E1 at the project level is in fact the underpinning science which is essential to enable solutions to be found. Much of it forms part of planned programmes of work which are quite explicitly directed towards finding solutions.

None of the Met Office’s workhas been categorised as research on solutions. bearing in mind that projects were coded for their immediate focus and not for the overall programme’s aims, this does make sense. Met Office does aim to provide a solution in the form of accurate weather forecasts so that people can protect themselves from coming meteorological threats.

n Finally, we note the particularly even spread of effort across all categories in ea’s research portfolio, and similarly for defra and for dft.

4.6basICUndeRstandIng,PRoblemsandsolUtIonswItHInPRIoRItYaReas

In considering whether the major environmental research priorities have been addressed adequately we want to know not only how much work has been done, and is being done, on them but also what sort of work. One of the ways in which this can be analysed using the ERFF multi-dimensional classification scheme is to subdivide the spend for each priority area between the main EpICS categories described in section 4.5.

The kite diagrams in figure8 show the results of this analysis.

For some priority areas the EpICS distribution is implicit in the nature of the area. For example, work on flooding and flood defence is inevitably mostly concerned with protecting humans17 from the effects of flooding rather than with stopping rain at source. (Work which is about preventing or reducing climate change, which could also reduce extreme weather events and hence reduce flooding at source, would not be sufficiently closely identified with flooding to be included in the flooding priority area.) Similarly, work on solutions for natural risks and hazards is almost exclusively about mitigating the effects of these on humans, since there is no possibility of preventing earthquakes or volcanoes at source.

For many of the areas, however, we would expect research to cover most of the top level EpICS categories.

17 Protecting humans includes protecting infrastructure and buildings

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


fIgURe8: RESEARCH SpEND ON UNDERSTANDINg THE ENVIRONMENT, ON pROblEMS AND ON SOlUTIONS WITHIN EACH ENVIRONMENTAl pRIORITy AREA

Fund

amen

tal

unde

rsta

ndin

g

pres

sure

s &

impa

cts

Con

sequ

ence

s

Solu

tions

: pre

vent

ion

Solu

tions

: rem

edia

tion

Solu

tions

: miti

gatio

n &

ada

ptat

ion

0%

20%

40%

60% biodiversity/ conservation

Natural resources

Climate change

Energy

Farming, fisheries, forestry and land use

Waste




Human health


pollution

Fund

amen

tal

unde

rsta

ndin

g

pres

sure

s &

impa

cts

Con

sequ

ence

s

Solu

tions

: pre

vent

ion

Solu

tions

: rem

edia

tion

Solu

tions

: miti

gatio

n &

ada

ptat

ion

Fund

amen

tal

unde

rsta

ndin

g

pres

sure

s &

impa

cts

Con

sequ

ence

s

Solu

tions

: pre

vent

ion

Solu

tions

: rem

edia

tion

Solu

tions

: miti

gatio

n &

ada

ptat

ion

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


4.7tRaInIngInenVIRonmentalReseaRCH

The results presented in sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 are based on research projects carried out by experienced researchers. To find out whether we are likely to have the right balance of researchers in the future in these areas we have carried out the same analysis as given in Figure 3, but this time looking only at phD research projects and Master’s courses in environmental research subjects. The two profiles are presented side by side in figure9.

It is evident that the general pattern of spend on phDs and Masters courses is a close match in most respects to the spend on fully trained researchers for the priority areas we have investigated. The figures against each area in the bar charts in figure9 shows the spend for that area as a percentage of the sum of the spend figures for all the areas. As we explained earlier, looking at the percentages is a reasonable way of assessing the relative spend figures on the different areas.

Should we be surprised or pleased that the pattern for trainees is so close to that for fully fledged researchers? Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be trainees working in the same areas as their supervisors and lecturers. but we have at least been able to perform the comparison, and the result is reassuring. The spend figures for trainees are close to being in direct proportion to their numbers, so we can interpret the training graph as indicating relative numbers of trainees, particularly phDs, working in each area.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


fIgURe9: SpEND ON TRAININg IN ENVIRONMENTAl pRIORITy AREAS COMpARED WITH MAIN RESEARCH SpEND IN THESE AREAS


Climate change

Energy

Farming, fisheries, food, forestry, land use



Human health



Natural resources

pollution

Waste


6.1%

10.7%

1.7%

9.4%

0.5%

7.6%

0.3%

11.8%

21.8%

5.2%

8.7%

0.7%

15.5%

6.1%

12.4%

1.9%

17.3%

1.2%

6.9%

1.1%

8.3%

18.9%

4.9%

9.9%

2.9%

8.3%

Research18 Training19

18 Research excluding PhDs and Masters courses19 PhDs and Masters courses (including MRes) only

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


4.8dRIVeRsofenVIRonmentalCHange

The Driver dimension in the ERFF classification scheme is intended to help identify research on environmental issues in which particular sectors of industry or society are an important cause.

Of course, much environmental research is on natural processes in which humans do not play a causal role. In order that all projects could be coded on this dimension, a code for natural processes was included in addition to the sector and generic activity drivers.

figure10 shows the sectors identified as drivers in research funded by ERFF members. A high proportion (just over 30%) of research relates to natural processes, as we would expect from the high percentage of work on fundamental understanding of the environment and environmental processes. Another 30% relates to non-specific drivers. A project is coded as having non-specific drivers in any of the following cases:

n if a large number of different drivers are likely to be implicated, of which none in particular is known to predominate

n if it is looking at a problem where the causal sector has not yet been identified

n if the project description does not supply enough information for the coder to be able to assign a specific driver with confidence

It is likely that some projects which have currently been assigned this code could be identified to one or more specific drivers with some further work.

A separate code was included for energy use in general; this represented 7.4% of the total project spend. Work related to energy use in a specific industry, or in transport, was coded to the specific sector rather than the general one.

Of the work which could be related to specific sectors, the largest proportion related to agriculture, horticulture and forestry, with an 18% share. No other individual driver came close to this figure, the next highest being fishing and aquaculture at 2.8%. The projects related to agriculture, horticulture and forestry include those looking at agriculture, horticulture and forestry world-wide as well as in the UK, and cover very a wide range of topics.

Note that the Driver category is not intended to indicate the sector which would suffer the consequences of an environmental problem (unless of its own causing). So, for example, in work on the damaging effects of bottom-trawling on the sea bed and its ecosystems, fishing and aquaculture would be assigned as the driver, as it is causing the environmental change. However, if the work was about loss of fish stocks through industrial pollution, fishing and aquaculture would not be included as a driver. The fishing industry would suffer the consequences of the pollution in loss of fish but is not its cause. The driver here would be whichever sector of industry was identified as causing the pollution, or the industry category as a whole if no more specific sector could be identified.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


fIgURe10: ECONOMIC SECTORS INFlUENCINg ENVIRONMENTAl CHANgE

0.05% C

omm

erce

7.4% En

ergy

use

17.9% Agriculture, horticulture & forestry

1.7% Extractive &

manufacturing industries

1.7% Utilities

1.4% Energy production

& generation

0.2% Food processing, supply & service

2.8% Fishing & aquaculture

1.0% Construction

1.9% Transport

0.3%

Edu

catio

n, h

ealth

ser

vice

&

publ

ic s

ecto

r of

fice-

base

d in

dust

ries

31.4% N

on-

specific driver(s)

0.1%

Tou

rism

&

rec

reat

ion

0.4%

Hou

seho

lds

&

priva

te in

divid

uals

31.3%

Natu

ral

proc

esse

s

0.6% Other identifiable drivers

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

4.9tHeenVIRonmentaldomaInsofReseaRCH

The Domain dimension of the ERFF classification scheme allows the principal focus of the work to be located in one or more environmental domains. This provides a further means of analysis which is of interest to some ERFF members; it will also be used during the next phase of the project, to assist in constructing search profiles when individual project information is made available.

figure11 gives an overview of the main areas covered by this dimension, and figure12 shows in more detail how spending on research about the biosphere is subdivided between animals, plants, microorganisms and ecosystems of various types.

In the Domain dimension in particular, research nearly always involves more than one item, and

quite frequently up to four can be relevant to the main focus of a project. When this happens, the total project spend is split equally between the codes assigned to the project. In addition to the major environmental domains of air, water, earth and biosphere there is a category for research on instrumentation and research methodology. This is used to identify projects in which research and development on sensors, instruments or other equipment, or the development of modelling techniques or new research methodology is a significant part of the work. Many projects include this type of work whilst also using the newly developed instruments, models or methodology to study another domain. because of this, the development of instrumentation and research methods attracts a significant share (about 27%) of total project spend.

fIgURe11: THE ENVIRONMENTAl DOMAINS OF RESEARCH

4.6% Climate & weather systems

12.6% lithosphere14.0% Hydrosphere

7.9% Atmosphere

38% biosphere0.2% Space

20.8% Instrumentation & research methods

1.9% Non-specific domain


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

fIgURe12: bIOSpHERE RESEARCH IN MORE DETAIl


Cellular or non species-specific

Individual species or specific inter-species interactions Ecosystems

biosphere research not otherwise

identified

2.4% 79.2% 17.5% 0.9%

Humans

12.0%

Other animals

38.3%

plants Microorganisms

Species not otherwise identifiable

33.5% 15.1% 1.1%

Arctic ecosystems

0.8%

Freshwater ecosystems

15.5%

Estuary ecosystems

3.2%

Marine ecosystems

22.5%

Terrestrial ecosystems

47.2%

Other ecosystems

Ecosystems not otherwise

identifiable

1.9% 8.8%

figure12 shows that the majority of environmental research on the biosphere (79%) was about individual species or inter-species interactions. Within this, approximately 38% was about non-human animals (where animals here includes everything from large mammals to insects), approximately 33% was about plants, and approximately 15% was about microorganisms.

The classification scheme supports a further level of analysis on this, subdividing the animals into mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, arthropods and other animals. plants are subdivided into cultivated plants (whether on land or in water) and uncultivated plants

(similarly). Microorganisms are subdivided further into three groups: monera, (bacteria), protists and algae; viruses, prions and other noncellular entities; and fungi.

figure12 also shows how ecosystems research was divided between different types of ecosystems.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0


4.10tHesPeCtRUmofReseaRCHfRomPURetoaPPlIedandbeYond

The Frascati coding system introduced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classifies Research and Development (R&D) activities as basic research, applied research and experimental development, and suggests a possible subdivision of basic into pure basic and orientated basic. Some individual European countries, including the UK, have found it convenient also to subdivide applied research. The UK government (bERR) collects and publishes statistics on the government financing of Science,

Engineering and Technology (SET) activities, and ERFF member organisations are required to submit details of the Frascati codings of their SET activities. Members therefore felt it would be useful to include Frascati coding in the ERFF classification scheme, to see how well the environmental research which they sponsor covers the range from pure basic research to experimental development. figure13 shows the distribution of Frascati codes amongst ERFF members’ environmental research and training as a whole, and figure14 shows the equivalent distribution for each member.

fIgURe13: pURE – ApplIED DISTRIbUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg – TOTAl ERFF

pure

bas

ic

Orie

ntat

ed b

asic

Stra

tegi

c ap

plie

d

Spec

ific

appl

ied

Expe

rimen

tal

deve

lopm

ent

Non

-Fra

scat

i

0%

20%

40%

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


fIgURe14: pURE–ApplIED DISTRIbUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg – INDIVIDUAl MEMbERS’

pure

bas

ic

Orie

ntat

ed b

asic

Stra

tegi

c ap

plie

d

Spec

ific

appl

ied

Expe

rimen

tal

deve

lopm

ent

Non

-Fra

scat

i

bbSRC Defra DFID

DfT EA EpSRC

ESRC Met Office MRC


0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

pure

bas

ic

Orie

ntat

ed b

asic

Stra

tegi

c ap

plie

d

Spec

ific

appl

ied

Expe

rimen

tal

deve

lopm

ent

Non

-Fra

scat

i

pure

bas

ic

Orie

ntat

ed b

asic

Stra

tegi

c ap

plie

d

Spec

ific

appl

ied

Expe

rimen

tal

deve

lopm

ent

Non

-Fra

scat

i

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


figure13 shows that ERFF members as a whole are sponsoring environmental research that covers the range from pure basic research to experimental development in much the way that we would expect. There is a solid core of pure basic research which acts as the foundation, with even more research in the orientated basic and strategic applied categories. As we move from strategic applied research towards experimental development funding decreases. The most obvious explanation for this is that once a sufficient foundation of basic and strategic applied research has been achieved in a topic, industrial, commercial and other funders are likely to take it forward to practical application.

Looking at the Frascati profiles for the individual members, we see that:

n NERC was the only member funding a significant amount of pure basic research. This is in line with NERC’s role as the research council with responsibility for environmental research

n all the research councils, except EpSRC, funded a significant proportion of orientated basic environmental research, as did SEERAD, which carried some research council responsibilities in Scotland. DFID also devoted about 20% of its environmental research spending to orientated basic research

n strategic applied research was the area attracting highest spend for the majority of members. This was particularly so for the government departments, but also for BBSRC, ESRC, Met Office and SNIFFER on behalf of SEpA

n Defra, EA and EPSRC spent more on specific applied environmental research than on any other category, and DFID, SEERAD and SNIFFER spent almost as much on specific applied research as they did on strategic applied research. This is in accordance with the practical environmental responsibilities

held by Defra, DFID, EA, SEERAD, and the members of SNIFFER including SEpA. In EPSRC’s case it reflects the fact that EPSRC’s involvement in environmental research is largely about finding technological solutions to environmental problems and so falls almost inevitably into the specific applied category

n the proportion of spending on experimental development was relatively low or zero for all members, although it still formed a non-trivial proportion of spend for EpSRC (16%), DFID (11%), EA (10%) and NERC (9%). It would be interesting to include information about commercial and industrial research in the analysis, to see if private funding is filling the partial gap left by public funding at the experimental development stage.

4.11tHePRImaRYPURPosesofPUblICfUndIng

One of the ways in which the government finds it useful to analyse public spending on research activities, or, more accurately, on SET, is by the purpose for which the public funding is provided. This is referred to as ‘primary purpose’, and six categories of spending are defined:

n general support for research; this includes all basic and applied R&D which advances knowledge for its own sake, and support for postgraduate research studentships (phDs)

n R&D relevant to any aspect of government service provision

n policy support – R&D which government funds to inform policy and for monitoring developments of significance for the welfare of the population

n technology support – applied R&D that advances technology underpinning the UK economy. This includes strategic as well as applied research

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


n technology transfer – activities that encourage the exploitation of knowledge in a different place from its origin

n taught course awards, including awards for Masters degrees.

The allocation of research to these categories is determined by the government’s primary purpose in funding the activity and not the intentions of the researcher or the end result.government’s own statistics provide information on the distribution of R&D by primary purpose

for SET as a whole, but ERFF members wanted information on the distribution of primary purpose for environmental research on its own. primary purpose was therefore included in the classification scheme for the research database.

figure15 shows the primary purpose distribution for all projects included in the analysis, and figure16 shows the equivalent distributions for individual ERFF members.

fIgURe15: pRIMARy pURpOSE DISTRIbUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg – TOTAl ERFF

0%

20%

40%

ppA

gen

eral

su

ppor

t &

phD

s

ppb

gov

ernm

ent

serv

ices

ppC

pol

icy

supp

ort

ppD

Tec

hnol

ogy

supp

ort

ppE

Tech

nolo

gy

tran

sfer

ppF

Taug

ht

cour

ses

(Mas

ters

)

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

fIgURe16: pRIMARy pURpOSE DISTRIbUTION OF INDIVIDUAl ERFF MEMbERS’ ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH AND TRAININg

bbSRC Defra DFID

DfT EA EpSRC

ESRC Met Office MRC


0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

0%20%40%60%80%

ppA

gen

eral

su

ppor

t &

phD

s

ppb

gov

ernm

ent

serv

ices

ppC

pol

icy

supp

ort

ppD

Tec

hnol

ogy

supp

ort

ppE

Tech

nolo

gy

tran

sfer

ppF

Taug

ht

cour

ses

(Mas

ters

)

ppA

gen

eral

su

ppor

t &

phD

s

ppb

gov

ernm

ent

serv

ices

ppC

pol

icy

supp

ort

ppD

Tec

hnol

ogy

supp

ort

ppE

Tech

nolo

gy

tran

sfer

ppF

Taug

ht

cour

ses

(Mas

ters

)

ppA

gen

eral

su

ppor

t &

phD

s

ppb

gov

ernm

ent

serv

ices

ppC

pol

icy

supp

ort

ppD

Tec

hnol

ogy

supp

ort

ppE

Tech

nolo

gy

tran

sfer

ppF

Taug

ht

cour

ses

(Mas

ters

)


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

In general terms, we would expect that most research council-sponsored research would be classified as general support for science and support for phD students, most government department research spend would be in support of policy, and most research spend by the agencies (EA and SEPA) and by the Met Office would be in support of government services. We would also expect to see some lesser expenditure on technology support and technology transfer, with some relatively small spend on Masters courses by the research councils.

The distributions of primary purpose for the individual members do very largely follow this pattern. looking at the differences from the basic general pattern we see that:

n although most of its environmental research is in support of policy, defra spends about 15% of its environmental research spend on technology support

n dfId’s 44% spend on policy support is very nearly matched by 38% spend on general support for science. Relating this back to DFID’s EPICS profile in figure7, it should probably be interpreted as research about finding solutions to practical problems

n dft, like Defra, uses about 15% of its environmental research spend in support of technology

n ea, perhaps surprisingly, spends more on research in support of policy than on research about the delivery of its own government service. EA appears to act on behalf of Defra in research related to policy in areas where it has particular expertise. Where research is about what policy to adopt, it has been coded in the database as policy research, and where it is about how best to implement a policy which has already been agreed, it has been coded as research in support of government services

n although ePsRC spends a substantial proportion (49% of its environmental research spend) on general support for science, it also spends about 30% on technology support. This is not surprising given the relationship of the engineering and physical sciences to technology

n on the other hand, esRC devoted some spend (15%) to research in support of policy. Again, we can hardly be surprised. ESRC funds a number of research centres focussed on policy-relevant issues

n the very high proportion of neRC’s spend on general support for research reflects its remit. However, at the level of designing research programmes, NERC actively engages stakeholders to ensure effective knowledge exchange

n seeRad devoted some spend in general support for science, which is consistent with its research council role in Scotland. like Defra, it devoted a share of its research spend (12%) to technology support

n snIffeR research (for sePa and others) was very largely in support of policy. We are unable to comment on whether this would be typical for SNIFFER but it does seem logical for its function.


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

CHaPteR5: SUMMARy OF RESUlTS

This analysis has found that, for ERFF as a whole:

n ERFF members spent over £260 million on environmental research and £23 million on environmental research training in 2004-05. These were the direct costs of the projects alone. The additional costs of maintaining research infrastructure are estimated to take the total cost of environmental research by these organisations to over £500 million.

n Of 12 environmental research priorities examined in this analysis, most money was spent on research on natural resources, on farming, fisheries, food, forestry and land use, and on climate change. pollution, the marine and coastal environment, the freshwater environment, biodiversity and conservation, and natural hazards also attracted a significant amount of funding. Relatively little public money was identified as having been spent on waste, the environmental aspects of energy20, flooding and flood defence, and the environmental aspects of human health21. Spend profiles for individual ERFF member organisations show how their research was distributed between these 12 areas.

The priority areas vary widely in diversity; furthermore, some types of research are inherently more expensive than others. These findings therefore need careful interpretation.

n Spending on training in priority areas was in proportion to research spend, suggesting that future researchers are being trained on current priorities.

Using the ERFF environmental classification scheme, the whole portfolio of research activities was analysed in several different ways. These showed, variously, that:

n analysing by EpICS: for ERFF as a whole, half of research spend was on research to improve fundamental understanding of the

environment and environmental processes; a quarter was on research seeking solutions to environmental problems; about 10% was on research on pressures and impacts on the environment; and a further 10% was spent on the consequences of environmental change, for the living world. Of the resources devoted to solutions, most was spent on seeking ways to prevent environmental problems from arising, or to reduce their extent. Individual profiles show how each ERFF member’s research met these different purposes.

n analysing by Driver: nearly 18% of environmental research spending was in areas where environmental changes were driven by agriculture, horticulture or forestry22, and about 7% in areas driven by energy use. Nearly 3% of spend was on projects where fishing and aquaculture were responsible for environmental changes, and transport, the utilities, extractive and manufacturing industries, energy production, and construction each accounted for between 1% and 2% of spend. About 30% of spend could not be identified with a specific driver, and about 30% was on research into natural processes with no economic sector driver.

n analysing by Domain: about 38% of research was about the living world, 14% about water (including ice), 13% about the lithosphere (rocks and soil) and a further 13% was about the atmosphere, climate and weather systems. Research and development of research instruments and methods (including modelling techniques) formed a part of many projects and accounted for 21% of the total spending on projects.

n analysing by Frascati code: ERFF research as a whole was fairly evenly spread across the pure – applied spectrum; 14% was spent on pure basic research, 22% on orientated basic, 32% on strategic applied,

20 There is a very large public spend on energy research in total, a high proportion of which will have environmental effects21 Only health research with a direct link to environmental factors was included22 Includes agriculture, horticulture or forestry worldwide

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

24% on specific applied, and 7% on experimental development. Individual member profiles on this pure – applied dimension showed how their individual research patterns fitted into the picture as a whole.

n analysing by primary purpose:- the majority of research spend by ERFF as a whole was in general support for science (55%) or in support of policy (30%), with 9% on technology support and 4% on research into the better provision of government services. Profiles for individual ERFF members show widely differing patterns of primary purpose.

Examining the results for individual ERFF members shows that:

n NERC and Defra made the biggest investment in environmental research (46% and 24%, respectively, of the total ERFF investment)

n all the research funded by EA, NERC and SEpA was classed as environmental research. About half of Defra’s research was environmental. For several ERFF members, environmental research represented only a small percentage of their total research budgets

n most research by BBSRC, Met Office, NERC and SEERAD was concerned with establishing fundamental understanding of the environment and its processes, MRC’s research was largely investigating the consequences of envronmental problems for the living world, research by DFID, EpSRC, ESRC and SNIFFER (for SEpA) was mainly about the solutions to environmental problems, and Defra, DfT and EA all spread their resources across most or all of these categories

n the primary purpose of most research supported by research councils was general support for research; government departments carried out research largely for policy support; EpSRC funded a larger share of work in support of technology than any of the other funders; and Met Office’s research included in this analysis was all in support of government services. EA funded a mixture of work, including policy support research, research in support of government services, and some research in the general support category.

5:SUMMARy OF RESUlTS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

The framework developed for this analysis provides a flexible and powerful methodology, and tools, for understanding environmental research activity, identifying gaps and overlaps, and supporting the planning of future work. The results presented in this report only scratch the surface of its capability.

ERFF member organisations and others have shown interest in adopting the ERFF environmental classification scheme. The Scientific Knowledge for Environmental protection (SKEp) ERAnet has adopted a scheme based on ERFF’s, for the analysis of environmental research across Europe. NERC, with the largest number of projects in the ERFF database of any of the ERFF members, has plans to develop a variant on the scheme in collaboration with ERFF and to use it to classify their own research. Other members have also expressed interest in using the scheme for their own purposes. The existence of a largely common framework would greatly increase the potential for exchange of information, future analysis and effective planning of research.

The next steps with the database and the analysis will be:

n for the current dataset to be made available to ERFF members in a form which will enable them to use it to inform the planning and management of their own programmes

n for the classification scheme to be reviewed and refined in the light of experience in this first analysis

n for the dataset to be updated to cover more recent research, and extended to include research funded by new ERFF members

n for the updated and extended dataset to be made more widely available to ERFF members and other interested parties.

looking further ahead, we hope to add information on project outputs to the database. Although not included in our current programme of

work we expect this to be feasible. Such developments would need to complement and build upon existing outputs databases (such as those of ESRC and NERC) and planned developments by other ERFF members.

Ideally, research should be reviewed in terms of its outputs as well as its inputs, and particularly its economic impact and contribution to the quality of life of UK citizens. If this could be achieved, it would provide a more useful relative measure of the worth of a project than the money which has been spent on it. However, the methodological difficulties and the scale of work involved in pursuing this are such that it is not likely to be attempted in the near future.

ERFF members have agreed to take forward the refinement of the classification scheme, the updating and extension of the dataset, and web publication of the database, as a major component in their new work programme for 2007-10. An additional member of staff has been recruited to the ERFF Secretariat to help cope with the workload. The classification scheme review has already started, and discussions are in progress with some ERFF member organisations who have offered to help make the database available on the web.

CHaPteR6: REVIEW OF THE pROjECT AND NExT STEpS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

aPPendIX1: THE DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH

The starting point for defining what work should be included as ‘environmental’ in the database and the analysis was the definition of ‘environmental science’ adopted for the ERFF SWOT review in 2003. In their final report, the review team explained:

“The definition of ‘environmental science’ adopted for the review is deliberately wide-ranging, namely ‘the sciences concerned with investigating the state and condition of the Earth’. This definition includes the ‘traditional environmental science’ disciplines (e.g. ecology, atmospheric sciences, marine sciences etc) as well as pressures on the environment (such as resource usage, pollution, waste, land use etc) and the interactions of society, individuals and the environment. It also includes those disciplines concerned with managing and improving the environment.”

This wide-ranging definition encompasses the contributions of all the ERFF member organisations.

From this starting point, we have laid down the following general rules on what should be included. We have included research about:

n the inanimate natural world

n the interactions of living things with the inanimate natural world

n the interactions of living things with other species of living things

n living things or man-made materials or products where the prime aim or the substantial result is to reduce adverse impacts on the environment.

A good idea of the scope of the research included is given by the Domain and EpICS dimensions of the ERFF classification scheme (see Appendix 2).

Note that in referring to the environment we are not including the environment within buildings; however, research which is about aspects of buildings which have an impact

on the external natural environment, such as energy use in a building, would be included under the heading of environmental research.

Expanding on the general rules, research about the inanimate natural world includes the study of any physical aspect of the lithosphere (in which we have included the soil, sometimes referred to as the pedosphere), the hydrosphere (in which we have included ice, sometimes separately classified as the cryosphere) or the atmosphere. This includes (but is not necessarily limited to) geology, mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry, geomorphology, paleontology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, vulcanology, physical geography, geophysics, geodesy, soil science, hydrology, glaciology, limnology, hydrogeology, physical and chemical oceanography, meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, and paleoclimatology. We have also included projects concerned with the research and development of instrumentation and research methods (including the development of modelling techniques) for environmental research. In many cases a single project combines the development of a technique or a model or an instrument with its application in pursuit of environmental research.

Research on living organisms is included to the extent that it is about the interaction between the organism and the environment; the environment here can be another species of organism, but only where at least one of the species involved is a wild, not a farmed, species. In addition to this, where research on living organisms has the prime aim or the substantial result of changing impacts on the environment it is included, but where the research has wider aims or effects which merely could include some environmental effects, amongst others, it is generally excluded.

Research which is about anything purely internal to organisms, such as their physiology, behaviour or diseases, is excluded unless it has a non-trivial effect on the environment, or unless

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0

environmental factors are clearly implicated in its cause. In relation to work funded by the MRC this has meant that only work with a clear direct link to the environment has been included. The MRC also funds work on a number of diseases, and on their treatment, where the environment may be one causative factor amongst many; at present this work has not been included. Similar considerations apply to research funded by Defra, where projects about animal health have been excluded unless there is a direct strong link to environmental factors.

Motivation for research is sometimes relevant to the decision on whether or not a project should be included in the analysis. For example, Defra funds a small group of projects on the management of wildlife. At first sight these appear to be motivated principally by the desire to protect crops, which puts them straightforwardly into agriculture and not to environmental research. In fact, however, the reason for the research is to find ways of protecting crops which inflict less damage on wildlife than do traditional methods, such as shooting or trapping; the wildlife are part of the environment and they are the ones being protected. For this reason these projects have been included.

Motivation is, however, not always the deciding factor on whether a project should be included. Funding may be provided for research with the aim of reducing poverty, or reducing process costs. If a major and substantial effect of the work is also to conserve precious natural resources, or to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the research would still be included. Often there are multiple motivations for a project – to reduce both costs and carbon emissions, for example.

For research on man-made things, the principles are the same as for living organisms; it is included to the extent that either it is about the interaction between the man-made thing and the environment or it has the prime aim or

substantial result of reducing adverse impacts on the environment. Work with wider aims or effects which could include some environmental effects, amongst others, is generally excluded.

In general, where there is a direct link with the environment, work has been included. If the link to the environment is two steps or more away, it has been excluded, and if it is one step away, the project has been considered on its merits and a judgement made.

Whatever basic rule is adopted on inclusion or exclusion of projects, there are inevitably borderline cases which have to be decided case by case. We have tried to be as consistent as possibe.

aPPendIX1: THE DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

The full ERFF environmental research classification scheme has five dimensions. Two of these, Frascati and primary purpose, are widely used. They are explained in sections 4.10 and 4.11 respectively and need no further definition here. The other three dimensions – Driver, Domain and EpICS – were developed by ERFF for this analysis.

The Driver dimension is explained in section 4.8 and the principal subdivisions are shown in Figure 10. Of these, only energy production and generation, extractive and manufacturing

industries, and transport, are subdivided. There is a total of 48 codes in a three-level hierarchy.

The Domain and EpICS dimensions are more complex, and merit further explanation. figure17 shows the top level of the Domain dimension, with D3, Hydrosphere, expanded to show how it is further subdivided. The other codes are subdivided similarly as appropriate, distinguishing a total of nine top level, 10 second level and 25 third level Domains..

aPPendIX2: THE ERFF ENVIRONMENTAl RESEARCH ClASSIFICATION SCHEME

D1 Climate & weather systems

D2 lithosphere

D3 Hydrosphere

D4 Atmosphere/Air

D5 biosphere

D6 Space

D7 Instrumentation & research methods (research & development of)

D8 Infrastructure & overhead costs

D9 Non-specific domain

D3.1 freshwater

D3.1.1 rivers & streams

D3.1.2 lakes & ponds

D3.1.3 freshwater wetlands (incl marshes, bogs, swamps)

D3.1.4 aquifers

D3.1.5 river or lake beds

D3.2 salt water

D3.2.1 coastal water

D3.2.2 deep oceans

D3.2.3 seabed

D3.2.4 continental shelf

D3.3 brackish water

D3.3.1 estuaries, sea lochs & fiords

D3.3.2 salt marshes

D3.3.3 lagoons

D3.3.4 estuary bed

D3.4 ice

D3.4.1 polar

D3.4.2 glacial

fIgURe17 IllUSTRATION OF DOMAIN CODE HIERARCHy

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��


E1 Earth

E1.1 understanding or modelling normal processes

E1.2 understanding natural hazards

E1.3 assessing quantity or detecting or monitoring quantity changes

E1.4 assessing quality or detecting or monitoring quality changes

E1.5 forecasting future states or developing scenarios

E2 pressures and Impacts

E2.1 depletion of natural material resources

E2.2 pollution

E2.2.A

E2.2.b

E2.3 interference in natural processes

E2.4 population growth

E2.5 development & economic growth

E2.6 urbanisation

E2.7 lifestyle changes

E3 Consequences

E3.1 intermediate consequences

E3.2 consequences for material resources

E3.3 consequences for flora & fauna

E3.4 consequences for food & water supplies

E3.5 consequences for the built environment and human life

E3.6 consequences for human health

E3.7 consequences for amenity & quality of life

E3.8 consequences for wealth/poverty

E4 Solutions

E4.A purpose of solution

[codes E4.��.1-3 distinguish 3 different purposes]

E4.b Environmental application area of solution

[codes E4.B.1-10 and their sub-codes distinguish a total of 85 application areas]

E4.C broad technical nature of solution

[codes E4.C.1-7 and their sub-codes distinguish a total of 20 types of solution]

E5 Non-specific environmental problem area

E6 Other environmental issues

E6.1 environmental justice

fIgURe18 IllUSTRATION OF EpICS CODE HIERARCHy

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��


E2.2.A by type of pollution

E2.2.A.1 pollution by greenhouse gases

E2.2.A.2 pollution by ozone-depleting gases

E2.2.A.3 pollution by NOx &SOx

E2.2.A.4 pollution by heavy metals

E2.2.A.5 pollution by particulates

E2.2.A.6 pollution by nitrates, nitrites, ammonia & phosphates

E2.2.A.7 pollution by other organic chemicals

E2.2.A.8 pollution by other chemicals

E2.2.A.9 pollution by pathogenic organisms & other biological entities

E2.2.A.10 pollution by ionising radiation

E2.2.A.11 pollution by light

E2.2.A.12 pollution by other electromagnetic radiation

E2.2.A.13 pollution by noise

E2.2.A.14 other types of pollution

E2.2.A.15 non-specific pollution - airborne

E2.2.A.16 non-specific pollution - waterborne

E2.2.A.17 non-specific pollution - ground-borne

E2.2.b by source of pollution

E2.2.b.1 leakage of hazardous substances during their extraction, manufacture, transport or processing

E2.2.b.2 waste by-products of industrial (including agricultural) processes

E2.2.b.3 waste materials (end of life)

E2.2.b.4 usage

E2.2.b.5 nature

E2.2.b.6 non-specific or other source of pollution

figure18 illustrates the scope of the EpICS dimension, showing the six top level codes and indicating the 41 second level codes. Only the pollution section is expanded in full, showing its 17 third level codes by pollution type and its six third level codes by pollution source. The other second level codes are subdivided as appropriate, into a total of 158 third level and 50 fourth level codes. The pollution section illustrates the use of facets

in the scheme. In facets, codes are provided to characterise two or more independent aspects of a project. This adds further flexibility to the analyses which can be performed. The way in which the spend calculation is handled when codes from a faceted part of the scheme are used is described in Appendix 3. In the EpICS dimension, only pollution (E2.2) and Solutions (E4) are faceted.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

aPPendIX3: THE CAlCUlATION OF SpEND

THIS AppENDIx ExplAINS HOW CODES WERE ApplIED TO pROjECTS AND HOW THE CODES WERE USED IN CAlCUlATINg SpEND FIgURES

a3.1aPPlYIngCodestoPRojeCts

The codes were applied by the coders using a stand-alone electronic form which enabled them to see the project description and subsidiary information, and to view and select the appropriate codes easily. Any code could be marked either as ‘primary’ or as ‘secondary’. Coders were instructed to restrict the use of primary codes to the principal immediate purpose of the project. Secondary codes were used for other subsidiary topics included in the project work but not its main topic, or to provide some qualification of the main topic: for example, work on freshwater fish might be given a primary Domain code of ‘fish’, and a secondary Domain code of ‘freshwater’, or ‘rivers & streams’, to distinguish it from work on marine fish.

In this analysis, spend was allocated only in relation to the primary codings. The secondary codings are useful for filtering projects to be included in the analysis, and will also be useful in a later stage of the project, when the dataset is made available to ERFF members. The secondary codes will then provide the means of finding additional projects related, albeit less strongly, to a topic of interest.

Each project was coded independently by two different coders, and the results were quality checked and standardised as necessary by the project manager. because of the complexity of the scheme, the detailed codings of two different coders are often not identical. However, the top level codes used in most analyses reported here are much less subject to individual differences than are the detailed codings. The method of analysis for the priority areas involves analysing codes in groups which together make up a ‘topic’, and this also is robust to many of these coding differences at the detailed level.

a3.2RatIonalefoRsPendalgoRItHm

The basic data relating to each project, including the verified codings, were transferred to an Access database for analysis. The data import routine included calculation and storage of a variable used in the later analysis of project spend. This section explains why and how this was done.

Much environmental research cannot be adequately described by reference to a single code within each dimension. projects may involve more than one topic, or more than one environmental domain, or address both a problem and a solution, or relate to more than one driver, and so on. In these cases they need to be allotted more than one code within the EpICS dimension and/or the Domain dimension and/or the Driver dimension.

For example, a project may be about the emission of methane from cattle. both the cattle and the methane are essential parts of the study, and the work is clearly about both the biosphere and the Atmosphere, so the project will be given at least two Domain codes. When analysing overall environmental research spend against Domain, therefore, we have a choice: we either allocate the whole project spend to each of the codes used, or we split it between them.

If we allocate the whole project spend to each code, then a project which involves several different aspects within the same dimension will be given a much higher weighting than one which only has one code in that dimension. Furthermore, if we add up the spend across all the codes in that dimension, we will get a total which far exceeds the total spend on all projects.

For all the basic analyses reported here, therefore, the total project spend has been split between the various aspects of the work, allocating a proportion of the project spend to each separate code used in each dimension.

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

The next choice we have is whether to ask the coders to use their judgement in allocating an appropriate proportion of project spend to each aspect of the work, or to do this automatically by using a mathematical routine.

It must be recognised that, whichever method is used, it will not give perfect answers. There is no ‘correct’ allocation of spend amongst the different aspects of a project; the best we can hope for is that the allocation is, overall, a reasonable one which does not give significantly misleading results.

In this analysis we have used an automatic routine to allocate a proportion of the project spend to each primary code, for the following reasons:

n the classification scheme is complex, and the number of codes marked in total may be quite large for a single project

n the whole project spend needs to be allocated across each of the five dimensions

n the handling of spend within faceted parts of the coding scheme needs particular care, and special treatment (this is explained in the following text in this section)

n it is highly likely that coders would apply proportions which failed to sum to one in some dimensions

n the need to allocate proportions would add significantly to the workload of the coders and make coding slower; it may also have made it more expensive, and/or the extra burden may have demotivated them from completing the coding task

n it is unlikely that, overall, the proportions allocated by coders would give a significantly more accurate result than those which could be allocated almost instantly by the application of an appropriate algorithm.

a3.3CalCUlatIonofsPendfoRaPRojeCtCode

For the majority of the classification scheme, the total spend on a project has been divided equally between all the codes applied in a single dimension. So if a project has been given three domain codes, one driver code and two EpICS codes, for example, one third of the project spend will attach to each of the domain codes, the whole project spend will attach to the driver code, and half the total project spend will attach to each of the EPICS codes. These are the figures used in calculating the spend distribution when performing an analysis on any single dimension.

The case becomes more complicated in some parts of the classification scheme, specifically in the EpICS Solutions section, E4, and in the EpICS pressures and Impacts section for pollution, E2.2. In these parts of the scheme it is desirable to be able to analyse projects in more than one way. For example, we might want to subdivide projects about pollution by either the type of pollution or the source of the pollution. And we might want to subdivide Solutions projects by their purpose, or by their environmental topic, or by their nature. In these two areas, therefore, the scheme has two or more ‘facets’. The pollution section of the scheme, with its two facets, is illustrated in Appendix 2.

The cases of analysing by type of pollution and analysing by source are treated separately; they must not be combined in the same analysis. However, it is quite permissable to filter the projects so as to examine only those matching a particular pollution source, and split them up by pollution type, or vice versa.

Coders are instructed that where a project is about pollution they must always code it both by type and by source, and where a project is about a Solution they must always code it by purpose, by nature and by environmental topic.


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

The existence of these facets makes the calculation of an appropriate spend proportion more complicated, and is an additional reason why it is better done automatically than by individual coders’ judgements. Suffice it to say that when codes in faceted parts of the scheme are involved, the routine allocates an appropriate proportion of spend to the code at the top of the facet, and then splits this share in equal proportions to all the assigned codes on each branch of the facet.

This will sometimes give results for a particular project which are different from those which judgement would suggest; overall, though, we are confident that this method of allocating spend is more appropriate than any other practicable method, and that the number of cases where the spend allocation algorithm gives results which we think could be improved upon is small enough not to invalidate the results of the analysis.

a3.4CalCUlatIonofsPendfoRaCodesetoRatoPIC

For those analyses which only involve looking at a single dimension, the calculation of spend for each of the subsets of interest is quite straightforward. We first filter the project set to select only those projects that we want to analyse (e.g., only research projects, or only training projects, or any of a huge number of other potential filters that we can set up). We then use a programmed routine which sums the spend allocated to each of the relevant project codes for each of the projects in our filtered set, and provides the result for each ERFF member and for ERFF in total.

The calculation for the priority areas is rather different, as these are based on topic definitions which can involve more than one dimension. It is possible to use the same general method as for the single-dimension analyses, but to include an additional step in the calculation to allow proportions of project spend to be multiplied between dimensions. We have done this in the

past with largely successful results. However, some complications arise when topic definitions involve a keyword in addition to codes from the five main dimensions, and this leads to results which we believe may be misleading. In the analysis reported here, therefore, we have chosen to calculate spend for the priority areas as the total spend for the whole of each project whose codes match the code definition for that priority area. Although this gives a higher total spend than the alternative method of calculation, we believe it is more justifiable. It is interesting to note, however, that the two methods produce very similar profiles.


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

Each of the environmental priority areas included in the analysis described in Section 4.4 was defined in relation to the classification scheme. A single topic definition consists of a list of code combinations. Any project which has been assigned primary codes which match any of the code combinations in the topic definition will be selected as being about that topic. A code combination can either be a single code, or more than one code, all of which must be matched by the project in order to be selected for that topic. Most code combinations in use are actually single codes.

The following is a descriptive version of the topic definitions used in this analysis.

bIodIVeRsItY/ConseRVatIon

n conservation

n maintenance or improvement of habitats and ecosystems

n genetic changes in, extinction of, or damage to, individual species and genera

n damage to or loss of habitats

n damage to ecosystems

n reduced biodiversity

n introduction of alien species

n depletion of fish stocks

n ecosystems AND detecting or monitoring quantity changes

n individual species or specific inter-species interactions AND detecting or monitoring quantity changes

ClImateCHange

n pollution by greenhouse gases

n climate change and climate change effects

n inundation of low-lying land (from rising sea levels)

n health effects of extreme weather events, extreme temperatures and climate change

n solutions related to climate change and/or

supplies of energy and oil-based materials

n marked by (ERFF) keyword as related to climate change

eneRgY

n energy production and generation (this code includes all types and sources of energy, so any of these will be a match)

n depletion of coal reserves

n depletion of oil reserves

n depletion of gas reserves

n depletion of uranium reserves

n improved extraction and use of lower-grade sources

n improved generation and transmission efficiency

n dematerialisation

n changes in carbon-intensity of fuel mix

n non-fossil fuel energy sources

n energy efficiency (in end uses)

n combined heat and power

n fuel cells

n hybrid power vehicles

n changes in modes of transport (e.g. from private car to public transport/cycle)

faRmIng,fIsHeRIes,food,foRestRYandlandUse

n agriculture, horticulture and forestry

n fishing and aquaculture

n food processing, supply and service

n depletion of fish stocks

n genetic modification

n fish stocks

n crop production

n solutions for food supplies

n marked with ERFF keyword for food animals or plants

n land and landscape

aPPendIX4: DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAl pRIORITy AREAS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

��

n loss of countryside and reduction in landscape quality

n land use planning

n land and water management

n coastal defences and managed abandonment

floodIngandflooddefenCe

n flooding

n coastal erosion


n storm damage

n flood protection and relief


n land drainage and river basin management

fResHwateRenVIRonment

n freshwater (includes all types of freshwater)

n freshwater sediments

n lake and river ecosystems

n wetland and marsh ecosystems

n drinking water

n flooding

n remediation of watercourses

n land drainage and river basin management

HUmanHealtH

n consequences for human health (all types)

n solutions for human health (all types)

maRIneandCoastalenVIRonment

n tidal energy (as a Driver)

n coasts

n salt water (includes all types of salt water)

n brackish water

n estuary ecosystems

n coastal water ecosystems

n continental shelf ecosystems

n deep ocean ecosystems

n coral reef ecosystems

n tidal waves

n sea levels

n ocean currents

n coastal erosion


n damage from tsunamis

n tidal energy (as a Solution)


natURalResoURCes

n land and landscape

n fossil fuels

n other minerals and fossils

n aquifers

n fish

n uncultivated land plants

n ecosystems (includes all ecosystems)

n depletion of natural material resources

n consequences for material resources

n consequences for food and water supplies

n solutions related to climate change and/or supplies of energy and oil-based materials

n waste minimisation, waste management (mainly non-biodegradeable)

n water efficiency/ demand management

n alternative water resources

n solutions for material resources

natURalRIsksandHazaRds

n understanding natural hazards (includes all subcodes for specific hazards)

n climate change and climate change effects (includes effects such as temperature, precipitation, sea levels, ocean currents and extreme weather events)

n flooding


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RESEA

RC

H FU

ND

ERS’ FO

RU

M

STR

AT

EgIC

AN

Aly

SIS OF U

K ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Al R

ESEAR

CH

AC

TIV

ITy

��

n coastal erosion


n storm damage

n earthquake damage

n damage from tsunamis

n other building damage

n flood protection and relief


n building design to withstand environmental hazards and changes

n sunscreens (lotions etc)

n protective clothing

n protective buildings

PollUtIon

n pollution of all types

n ozone depletion

n acidification

n acid rain

n eutrophication

n contamination of land

n health effects of poor air quality/pollution

n health effects from pollution of food or water supplies

n consequences of light pollution for amenity and quality of life

n reduction of pollution at source by material substitution or other means

n remediation (including bioremediation) of land/soil

n remediation of watercourses

n more selective use of antibiotics, hormones and pesticides

waste

n sewage and waste disposal

n contamination of land

n minimisation of methane production from

biodegradeable wastes (via waste management)

n land use planning

n reduction of pollution at source by material subsitution or other means

n waste minimisation, waste management (mainly non-biodegradeable)

n recycling, recovery and re-use

Note that when a code is included in the definition of a topic for analysis it includes all codes which lie beneath it in the hierarchy, so that a project with any of these lower codes will also be included in the results.


ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

RES

EAR

CH

FU

ND

ERS’

FO

RU

M

ST

RA

TEg

IC A

NA

lySI

S O

F U

K EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TA

l R

ESEA

RC

H A

CT

IVIT

y

�0

Further hard copies of this and all ERFF reports are available from:

environment research funders’ forumpolaris housenorth Star avenueSwindonSn2 1eU

tel: 01793 411583Email: [email protected]

Electronic versions are also available from the ERFF website. www.erff.org.uk

Strategic analySiS of UK environmental reSearch activity

Documents

Strategic analysis of UK environmental research activity · SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats UK United Kingdom Web World Wide Web Correct at time of printing August