1. KNOWFOR Boundary Partner Survey 2016
Summary of results

2. Resources and knowledge accessed Knowledge Quality
Contents
Survey sample
KNOFOR Awareness
Information used
Knowledge Importance
Resources and knowledge accessed
Knowledge Quality
Influence on respondents work
Knowledge/research gaps
Knowledge generation and sharing
Addressing key issues
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

3. Survey sample
Respondents consisted of 201 individuals from the following fields.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

4. Awareness of KNOWFOR
Prior to the survey only 43% of respondents were aware of the KNOWFOR project. This compares with 25% of respondents were aware of the project at the time of the last survey.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

5. Knowledge importance
98.5% of respondents believed that external analysis and knowledge was of importance to their work.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

6. Information used
Institutional/policy information (70%) was the most used/needed information from Forest Knowledge resources. Followed by economic (58%) and methodological (52%).
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

7. Resource preference
Among the respondents, the internet was ranked as the most preferred support medium. Followed closely by journals/books. The least preferred resource was national archives.
Answer Options
Ranking
Rating Average
Internet
1st
2.63
Journals / books
2nd
2.80
Seminars / conferences
3rd
3.49
Informal exchange with colleagues / peers
4th
3.57
Communities of practice
5th
3.86
eLearning (webinars, e-courses)
6th
5.18
National archives
7th
5.47
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

8. Additional resources
Respondents also identified the following additional resources with which they accessed forest related knowledge.
Online libraries and databases (8)
Meetings with various people, e.g colleagues, locals, policy makers (8)
Training and workshops (7)
Grey literature, e.g. policy briefs, field reports (5)
Field visits (5)
Research projects and reports (4)
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

9. Accessing forest-related knowledge
While the majority of respondents stated that they had accessed knowledge, analysis or support from CIFOR, IUCN or PROFOR, 9% had not accesses anything from the three institutions.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

10. Topics explored
Those who had accessed the three institutions explored the following topics:
CIFOR
REDD/REDD+ (40)
Forest management/governance (25)
Climate change (18)
Landscape/forest restoration (14)
Landscape approaches (13)
forestry and gender (10)
Livelihoods/income/poverty (10)
Community based forestry (7)
Forest tenure (7)
Forest fire (6)
Forest policy (6)
Research results (5)
Deforestation (4)
IUCN
Landscape/forest restoration (43)
ROAM (15)
Forest management/governance (8)
Conservation (8)
Climate change (6)
Red list (6)
Wildlife/species index (5)
Economic assessment/analysis (5)
Biodiversity (4)
Forestry and gender (4)
Landscape approaches (4)
REDD/REDD+ (4)
Protected area management (4)
PROFOR
Forest management/governance (16)
Livelihoods/income/poverty (6)
REDD/REDD+(4)
Landscape/forest restoration (4)
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

11. Information quality
For all three institutions, at least 80% of respondents who had accessed information from them believed that it was of a high or very high quality.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

12. Influence on own work
At least 68% of respondents believed that the analyse or support from the institutions they had accessed, was influential on their work. This is an increase of 26% from the first year review.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

13. Influence on respondents’ work (n=155)
26% of respondents believed the analyse or support they accessed increased their understanding of topics and provide new perspectives, which could then be applied to/inform their work. A few also mentioned they used it to understand trends within the sector and who key actors were.
“The benefit of platforms such as CIFOR and IUCN is that they usually give a more elaborated overview of the most up-to-date knowledge”
“Informed my thinking about approaches to FLR planning and my inputs to national processes”
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

14. Influence on respondents’ work (n=155)
8% of respondents indicated that the support they accessed assisted in policy input, making and review.
“Helps to improve policy implementation and monitoring”
“Forest statistics are an important basis for our policy making”
8% indicated that it assisted with program/intervention development and implementation
“I used them as an input in program development (theory of change development)”
“They contribute great knowledge that can significantly shorten learning curves when implementing projects with communities”
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

15. Influence on respondents’ work (n=155)
13% of respondents stated that the support and analysis had assisted their research. They stated that it had help to guide and inform their research, as well as assist data collection and analysis.
“CIFOR's work on landscape governance and PROFOR's tool/ framework on governance is influencing my research at the FCPF on a governance work program.”
“These analyses allow [me] to elaborate and publish articles and documents with the collaboration of many colleagues”
5% stated that they used information from the institutions as reference in their writing, believing the information to be credible and trustworthy.
“Usually some of the only literature of quality that I can refer to”
“I trust the report, and use it as part of [my] source of information/evidence in my analysis”
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

16. Influence on respondents’ work (n=155)
Lastly, 4% of respondents stated they used the institutions’ support and analysis to assist their teaching, as well as the preparation of teaching/training materials.
“Helped in my teaching…”
“Used in [the] design of training materials on forest restoration”
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

17. Knowledge/research gaps (n=155)
Economic
23% of respondents believed that there were knowledge/research gaps within the forestry sector regarding the economic value of forests, as well as their contribution to economies.
Some examples include:
Quantifying economic reliance on forest product by the poor
Hidden value of forest ecosystem services
Best practice for economic use of forest resources
How deforestation/degradation affects economic development
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

18. Knowledge/research gaps (n=155)
2. Policy and governance
11% of respondents specified a knowledge/research gap regarding forest policies. Specifically they mentioned a gap between government policy and implementation in the field. As well as a gap regarding the impact and effectiveness of government policies.
6% mentioned a lack of knowledge regarding forest institutions and governance.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

19. Knowledge/research gaps
3. Reforestation and deforestation
8% of respondents mentioned a gap regarding reforestation.
Some examples include:
How to guarantee forest recovery after extraction
Long term efficacy of different landscape forest restoration methods
Carbon sinks of restoration efforts
Restoration monitoring
3% of respondents also mentioned a gap regarding deforestation
Figures about illegal deforestation
Historic information of deforestation and degradation trajectory
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

20. Knowledge/research gaps (n=155)
4. Climate change and ecosystems services
Climate change was a knowledge/research gap that 6% of respondents mentioned.
Some examples include:
The relation between forest loss and climate change
Linking climate change, biodiversity and forest landscape restoration
How to get developing country governments to take climate change more seriously
5% of respondents also mentioned a lack of knowledge/research regarding ecosystem services.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

21. Knowledge/research gaps (n=155)
Sharing and implementation
Lastly, 13% of respondents believed that there is an issue with the lack of research and intervention findings being shared and implemented.
Some examples include:
lessons learnt from interventions, clear recommendation for actions
Dissemination of findings to users and applications of the research findings are the major research gaps
…the challenge is more to share the knowledge we have, and to implement it wisely
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

22. More effective knowledge generation (n=141)
6% of respondents believed that for knowledge generation to be more effective it had to produced in collaboration with others. Respondents believed that more and diverse scientists, governments and end users should be involved in the process.
4% believed that forest related knowledge should be generated with scientific rigour. Respondents stated that the knowledge had to be “supported by evidences from the field” and accurate. One respondent also stated that “more collaboration to establish shared terminology” was needed
3% of respondents believed that the knowledge generated should be more applicable and address real problems. 2% also believed that the knowledge generated should aim to fill knowledge gaps.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

23. More effective knowledge sharing (n=141)
In-person
16% of respondents believed that knowledge sharing would be more effective is it was done in-person.
Respondents mentioned in-person meetings, workshops/training, seminars and conferences as ways to share knowledge in-person.
6% of respondents also stated that building networks between researchers, practitioners and policy makers could also improve knowledge sharing.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

24. More effective knowledge sharing (n=141)
2. Online
20% of respondents believed that the most effective way to share knowledge was through online means.
Respondents mentioned that knowledge should be shared through websites, social media and centralised online databases.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

25. More effective knowledge sharing (n=141)
3. Publications
Lastly, 13% of respondents mentioned that publications were the most effective means, but that there was a greater need for people to publish their research.
6% of respondents stated that research that was published needed to be easier to access. With some suggesting that the research should be made open access.
To be made available to a greater audience, 4% of respondents stated that publications should be in simple and easy to understand language, as well as translated into a greater number of languages.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2

26. Addressing key issues
At least 65% of respondents believed that the institutions they rated addressed key issues in the forestry sector well. This is an increase of 42% from the last survey.
9/11/2018
KNOWFOR Annual Report year 2