“Analysis of the outputs of BiodivERsA-funded projects – Projects completed over 2014-2018”
Published: November 2021
This report analyses the outputs of 25 transnational projects funded through three BiodivERsA calls launched between 2010 and 2013. The projects covered biodiversity, ecosystem services and their valuation; biodiversity dynamics, resilience and tipping points; and biological invasions and invasive alien species. They came to an end between 2014 and 2018.
The report examines what these projects produced, looking at academic publications, international collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and outputs relevant to policy and society. It also assesses whether projects were able to combine scientific excellence with stakeholder engagement and policy or practice relevance.
Key figures
The three BiodivERsA calls analysed in this report:
- mobilised more than €27 million in cash funding from 13 countries;
- supported 25 transnational research projects;
- produced more than 25 papers per project on average;
- saw around 10% of publications published in journals with an impact factor above 9;
- reached a mean journal impact factor close to 5;
- involved an average of 12 stakeholder structures per project.
Main areas of analysis
Beyond the figures, the report shows how BiodivERsA-funded projects combined scientific outputs, transnational collaboration and engagement with users of research results.
- Academic outputs: BiodivERsA analysed the peer-reviewed publications, using indicators such as the number of papers, journal impact factors and journal notoriety. The results show strong academic productivity and high scientific quality across the three calls.
- International scientific collaboration: the report maps collaboration networks based on co-authorship of scientific publications, showing how funded projects connected research teams across countries and supported pan-European scientific collaboration.
- Stakeholder engagement and policy-relevant outputs: the analysis covers the types of stakeholders involved, the level and timing of engagement, and outputs such as targeted materials, reports, tools, policy-relevant documents and management-oriented products.
A central question was whether investment in stakeholder engagement and policy or society-relevant outputs came at the expense of academic excellence. The analysis found no such trade-off. It also observed a tendency for projects with stronger academic outputs to produce more stakeholder-relevant outputs. It also shows that project monitoring needs to look beyond publications alone. Academic outputs remain important, but the report demonstrates the value of also tracking stakeholder engagement, collaboration networks and products designed for policy makers, practitioners and other users of biodiversity knowledge.
