Impact case study database

CU researchers have worked extensively with industry to bring new knowledge to SuDS, enabling the effective integration of these techniques into drainage designs. Introducing paving surface permeability and plants to SuDs, has resulted in tangible impacts on companies working with CU; this has been both in terms of product development and compliance, benefiting the downstream environments (please see the chart below for a summary of impact flow).

A major project has been the development of permeable pavement, an innovative drainage solution, which CU was involved in from the earliest stages. The journey began through the creation of a joint patent with the company Formpave in 2000, the first move to establish PP in a way that replaced traditional, often inadequate pipe and gully drainage. The UK Committee on Climate Change stated that during 2009-13, “an estimated 5,100,000m² (510 ha) of permeable paving was installed in England” - 8% of the total area of block paving (S1, p.1).  The market has grown since then, led by Marshalls, the UK’s largest SuDs installer; since 2014 they have generated a profit of £14 million based on turnover of £2.5 billion, of which £500 million is in permeable paving (S3).  They alone were responsible for installation of 5,000,000 m² of PP during 2014-2020, which has led to around 1,500,000 m³ of stormwater being diverted from the UK’s overloaded and flood prone sewer network. Marshalls observed the success of improving water quality in their offer, changing their design to include filtering geotextiles, after research at CU (S2). Explaining the impact of CU research in 2020, Marshalls head of SuDS said: “we lead the market because of this relationship with Coventry University…the collaboration with CU helps us in staying at the front of the sector. Coventry University is the only institution that we have active research with” (S3, S10).

CU and SEL Environmental have collaborated since 2000. CU research rigorously tested the properties of the Permavoid module, a key water storage element, found in all SEL designs since its initial development. SEL’s managing director, stated that Permavoid-related products, drawing on this research, make up 60% of total sales for the company, who in 2019 had a turnover of £2 million (S5).

He noted that much of the SEL collaboration with CU, “related to Permavoid systems and the many ways that they can be deployed, to attenuate water, gases and pollution (and) has been fundamental to our technical and commercial development as a company. As described in the case study, we have won many drainage and gas migration installations due to our collaboration with Coventry University” (S5,S10).

As acknowledged above, CU research revealing new SuDS properties has been invested in product development, generating new designs, new products and impact in the environmental sector. Testing of Permavoid at CU has inspired a range of new patented SEL drainage products, brought to market from 2004-2020. Of these, SEL have sold kilometres of novel linear drainage and water treatment products including Permaceptors, Permachannels and virtual curtain explosive gas migration barriers, with 50 UK schemes (S5).

Permavoid drainage is now used at Tottenham football stadium (2019) and the refurbished Anfield Stadium, Liverpool (2017, pictured above), where it prevents match postponement for a combined 2.2m supporters per annum – a significant cultural impact (S9). The Chief Executive Office of the Institute of Groundmanship attributes Liverpool’s 2019-20 Premier League title win in part to the “revitalised pitch benefits” delivered through the CU-informed Permavoid design, which contributed to their achievement of “100 points from their last 102 available on offer at home” (S9). Permavoid systems drain 161,860 m² of sports pitches in the UK alone representing 5 sports (S5, S8).

SEL used CU research on gas migration prevention technology to develop gas protection schemes, protecting human life from explosions arising from landfill gases leaking into buildings, and enabling regeneration of difficult environments. Using CU-trialled Permavoid design criteria to separate methane and water, in 2017, SEL vented gases from a site in Warrington, allowing safe construction of an £11,850,000 development: 104 low-rise dwellings, roads and parking. (S4). This achievement also built on our original publication (R3). SEL have installed Permavoid in 9 countries: UK, Ireland, USA, Bahrain, Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, Belgium, Poland (S5).

The KTP project with SEL from 2017 – 2019, demonstrated ecological impact, placing retrofit green roofs onto existing infrastructure (pictured above). Research has enabled better water management alongside habitat enhancement (S6,). An independently conducted ecological survey revealed 5 insect species with national and local rarity value, from a total of 120 insect species on the green roofs at Coventry University (S7). The innovation in green roofs improved and increased the total constructed habitat for rare insects (S6). This research has been incorporated into SEL’s product range, where green roofs are now used across four sites in Coventry, London, Aylesford and Blackburn.

The collaborative and applied nature of this rehabilitative research has informed policymakers and charities on commissioning, practice and programme delivery. Importantly, it has improved participants’ engagement and experience of the interventions examined.

Impact on Policymakers

At a UK parliamentary debate on ‘Mental Health in Prisons’ in January 2018, MP Rebecca Pow used R1 as evidence to advocate for ‘using gardening as a therapeutic intervention’ within the justice system, noting that the research had ‘discovered…the [beneficial] long-term effects’ they had on prisoners’ lives (S1). Likewise R1 has become a valuable resource for horticultural organisations advocating social-prescribing of gardening: ‘The Food Tank’, an international body for food advocates, uses it as key evidence to advise affiliated bodies on the use of land-based programmes in prisons and other secure settings (S8).

Based on her ‘community-involved approaches’ to interventions research (R5), in 2016 Brown was invited to contribute to the West Midlands Youth Violence Action Plan (YVAP) for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, a regional approach to creating safer environments for young people (S9). Work led by Brown to gather insights from key community organisations, individuals, and ‘a core group of prisoners’ was used to produce a final commission report in 2017, subsequently ‘used as a model of good practice by the Home Office and other local authorities’(S9). Data collected for the report was used to underpin a successful application to establish ‘the first West Midlands Violence Reduction Unit (RU)’, launched October 2019 (S9).

Impact on Organisations Delivering Rehabilitative Interventions

CU research on rehabilitative interventions generated evidence of what works, how and why, providing a new evidence base around rehabilitation commissioning. The former Deputy Director of HM Prison and Probation Service states that Coventry’s work at HMP Wandsworth (R6) not only ‘broadened’ their level of expertise on rehabilitative environments, but also enabled an evidence-assured approach to ‘commissioning decisions’, making it far easier to ‘validate the use of taxpayers’ money’ (S6).

Charities delivering rehabilitation interventions have utilised CU research to demonstrate the effectiveness of their work to commissioners, and guide implementation. The former Operational Director for ‘GO’ stated R1 provided a ‘validation of what we do’, and improved understanding of what made interventions successful, ‘helping shape and design the delivery of projects’ going forward, and justify the value of interventions to funders (S2). GO ‘use this research every day’ to adapt programmes to a ‘difficult environment’ in ‘any circumstances’ S2). GO’s former Head of Sustainable Communities noted that CU’s research ‘provided an external validation of the intervention’s success….it builds confidence in commissioners that these projects are demonstrably effective’ (S2).

For the former Director of Kairos, the research ‘helped us to show just what impact our work has, and why it is cost-effective’ within a highly competitive funding landscape (S4). Similarly, the Director of Bringing Hope notes how useful this ‘objective evidence’ of their intervention’s effectiveness was (R5), particularly to the foundation who fund them: he praised the way ‘collaboration with CU…allowed us to develop further’, informing future work (S4).

The Conservation Foundation have used CU’s research (R6) to further promote uptake of the ‘Unlocking Nature’ programme within prisons (S5). Through this, in 2019 Brown presented the research on effectiveness at the Lambeth Palace ‘Green Health Live’ conference, feeding into strategic work of Church of England’s Environmental Group Work to encourage the use of the spaces around church buildings for therapeutic gardening (S5).

The research (R1, 4 and 5) has helped improve delivery by highlighting the importance of effective relations between staff, intervention practitioners and participants. The CU team delivered training events on best practice interventions in October 2017 and April 2019, in partnership with TSOs, practitioners and prison service representatives. These were delivered to over 70 frontline workers operating in fields including housing, criminal justice, domestic and ‘gang’ violence, to develop strategies for collaborative working and programme delivery (S7). After her work with researchers, a Kairos practitioner better understood that knowledge she had ‘previously just taken for granted’, could be used to improve future interventions (S4). Findings have been used by former Deputy Director of HM Prisons and Probation Service internationally in training material for the US ‘Warden’s Exchange Programme’, who have shared the research ‘more widely across the prisons service there’ (S6).

Impact on Participants

Ultimately research has helped charities and prisons reflect on their rehabilitation interventions, and find ways to better support participants. Work with Kairos and Bringing Hope (R5) led to changes including more targeted support on release; the development of further opportunities for peer support; and inclusion of training to access employment (S3, S4). Although too soon to gauge the broader impact of the work, CU researchers have engaged directly with 80 men and women in prison interventions, and feedback makes clear that this benefitted their rehabilitative process (S10). Participants have reported improvements to personal wellbeing, self-esteem, and self-control (‘helping keep busy and focus my mind to other areas of my life’) and shared hopes that interventions could ‘spread out across the prison estate’ and help rehabilitate ‘16-21 year olds…before it’s all too late’ (S10).

In 2018, Claeys released an independent evaluation of the CSM (R6), while Brem-Wilson produced a report on facilitation practices within the CSM (R3). These documents contained recommendations for improving internal functioning (see four key areas above), many of which were adopted by the Coordination Committee of the CSM. This contributed to political change through the development of new legal norms that incorporate small-scale farmers’ concerns and priorities, leading to greater legitimacy, buy-in and implementation of CFS policy outputs. Substantial impacts can be identified in the following four areas:

Enhanced participation of rural youth.

‘The CSM evaluation generated awareness and created momentum around the importance of increasing youth participation’ (S1). This led to the following impacts: a) the Coordination Committee of the CSM issued a call to all participating organizations asking them to appoint youth leaders (S1); b) as a result, the dormant Youth Working Group was reinforced (gaining over 100 active participants), and new facilitators and coordinators were appointed (S1); c) this led to ‘remarkable strides in increased youth participation in the CSM ‘ (S10, p. 16), with an increase from 3% in 2014 to 25% at the annual CSM Forums of 2018 and 2019 (S10, p.6); d) the Youth Working Group drafted a statement highlighting their vision and key policy demands, including around the COVID crisis (S1); e) the Youth Working Group influenced a number of CFS policy outputs at the 46^th session of the CFS. A new and prioritized thematic workstream on “promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food system” was added to the CFS workplan 2020-2023 (S2, p.6, X, 28, c), and the ‘urgency of involving youth and women in the urbanization and rural transformation debate’ was recognized in 2019 at the 46^th Session of the CFS, in the workstream on Urbanization, Rural Transformation and Implications for FSN (S3, p.2, 4). As a direct result of Claeys’ recommendations, the inclusion and participation of the rural youth in the CFS were greatly enhanced and new legal norms were developed that protect the rights of the rural youth. The evaluation ‘was instrumental to these changes’ (S1).

Increased capacity of CSM sub-regional and constituency coordinators.

The CSM does not represent or speak on behalf of affected constituencies but facilitates their participation. Facilitation is therefore key to its identity and purpose. Yet, Brem-Wilson’s research ‘was the first attempt in its 8-year existence to systematically assess the practice of facilitation in the CSM’ (S4). Brem-Wilson’s research had the following impacts: a) ‘responding to recommendations’ in Brem-Wilson’s report, the Coordination Committee of the CSM ‘decided to constitute a specific Facilitation Working Group’ (S4); b) ‘the first task taken on by the Facilitation Working Group in June 2019, again addressing Brem-Wilson’s recommendations, was to launch an inclusive process of co-producing a (…) ‘ common understanding’ of facilitation. This resulted in a framework document, adopted in January 2020, that is now established as the CSM’s definition of facilitation’ (S4, S6); c) the Facilitation Working Group developed a new facilitation guide, leading to improved practices within the CSM (S4, S5); d) CSM Coordinators developed a better understanding of their roles as facilitators, leading to their increased engagement and motivation (S4, S5 ). The research led to enhanced practitioner capacity and substantial changes in professional standards and behaviours.

Increased representation of small-scale producers from 3 of the 17 CSM sub-regions.

The CSM evaluation identified the ‘important weakness’ that ‘some sub-regions participate more than others’ within the mechanism (S7), and recommended reaching out to missing sub-regions. ‘After that recommendation was discussed at the meeting of the Coordination Committee of the CSM in June 2018’, the Secretariat ‘took several steps to proactively foster the participation of underrepresented sub-regions, focusing on Central Asia, South Asia and Southern Africa’ (S7). This led to the following impacts: a) the CSM appointed representatives from these 3 sub-regions to its Coordination Committee (S7); b) the CSM organized a grassroots consultation for the Southern African region, ‘which received dedicated funding after the evaluation identified this as a priority’ (S7). The objective of this meeting was to ‘reactivate civil society engagement’ from 8 countries in the sub-region and identify joint policy priorities for CFS work (S8, p.18). The independent evaluation ‘proved to be an essential learning tool for our organization, as it… offered concrete and pragmatic ways forward’ (S7). It ‘contributed to significant improvements’ (S7), by strengthening inclusion within the CSM, and influencing the rights and participation opportunities of small-scale food producers from 3 important sub-regions.

Development of new practices and creation of new spaces for a more inclusive CSM.

‘The CSM evaluation identified a key weakness around (…) data collection practices (…), which were assessed as ‘insufficient to fully assess inclusivity’ (S9). The CSM Secretariat ‘took on board the recommendation of drastically reviewing the participant registration sheet in order to gather more personal data to be able to better track and monitor who participates’ (S9). This new registration sheet was implemented at the CSM Forum in 2018 and 2019. As a result, the CSM Secretariat is now able to ‘have a clear view on which constituencies and sub-regions participate and which groups are over or under-represented’ (S9). ‘This step marks an absolute breakthrough… as such information gathering is essential to monitoring the CSM’s level of inclusivity and to being able to identify and address weak areas’ (S10, p.17).

CU’s research has led to 1) increased awareness and people changing their gardening behaviour to support biodiversity; 2) wildlife and gardening charities improving the advice they give to people; 3) non-governmental organisations and UK Government integrating the results and tools developed into national strategies for biodiversity protection.

1. Supporting Biodiverse Gardening

Blooms for Bees (BfB) trained several thousand members of the public, particularly through the project’s monitoring app. The innovative nature of the technology was key to its impact. Noted by the Principal Scientist of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), “[P]artnering on the Blooms for Bees project has demonstrated the potential of smartphone technology in combination with citizen science to deliver useful data on pollinator and plant relationships” (S1). Recorders’ bumblebee identification accuracy improved from 24% for their first identification, to 44% by the tenth submission upwards (S2).

Over 2,600 households from across the UK requested bee-friendly plants and seeds, providing additional forage for bumblebees in 2017. 141 participants responded to the end of project questionnaire; the majority stated they had taken new actions to support bumblebees, either growing more bee-friendly flowers, improving nesting habitats, or eliminating use of chemicals (S2).

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) recognised the contribution that BfB made to raising public awareness, awarding the project a ‘Bees’ Needs Champions Award’ for exemplary initiatives which support pollinators (S3). Findings were reported widely in the press (S4) and gardening presenter/journalist Kate Bradbury dedicated several pages to BfB in a gardening manual she authored, drawing on CU evidence to give guidance on pollinator-friendly planting (S5).

Similarly, Plant Alert raised awareness about invasive ornamental plants through national press, TV and radio (S4). The approach also received international interest: in the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation Newsletter, in a newsletter for Dutch professional gardeners/landscape planners, and as a best practice example in a Spanish guide on citizen science (S6). The head of Defra’s Protected and Invasive Non-Native Species Team acknowledged that “Plant Alert provides a key role in raising awareness amongst gardeners of the potential harm associated with some non-native plants, and the need to garden, contain and dispose of them responsibly” (S7).

2. Advice and Advocacy

The RHS (500,000 members) and Bumblebee Conservation Trust (BBCT, 7,000 members) used results of BfB to strengthen their advice on planting to encourage biodiversity (S1, S8). The RHS used the results in their annual (2019) review of their Plants for Pollinators list, accessed online by 70,000 people each year and confirmed that “a number of recommendations and decisions were taken as a result of the Blooms for Bees trials” (S1). The BBCT used the results to ‘reinforce’ their planting advice: “we are now able to say that in nationwide research we’ve been involved with, species ‘x’ came out as good, rather than having to rely on second-hand information from others. One thing that has come entirely from the Blooms work is that we now mention dahlias as a good bedding-plant option” (S8). The BBCT is also updating its Bee Kind tool which recommends bee-friendly plants to gardeners, schools, businesses and local authorities by “updating the scoring algorithm to incorporate some of the findings from the Blooms analysis” (S8).

Through BBCT, the project’s bumblebee records are shared with the National Biodiversity Network, the UK’s largest partnership for nature, meaning that data is accessible for the long-term. Due to the data’s high-quality, which is “of known provenance and verified reliably” (S8), it is also accepted by the Bees, Wasps and Ant Reporting Society, contributing to the mapping and monitoring of changes in bumblebee populations.

3. Supporting National Biodiversity Strategies

Plant Alert directly supports the prevention and management of invasive ornamental plant species, as recommended by R3. Defra’s 2019 non-native species Horizon Scanning exercise, which Dehnen-Schmutz contributed to, included horticultural plants present in gardens for the first time. Defra recognise this as “an area for concern” where there are “significant gaps in our knowledge of those plants in gardens which may be becoming invasive” (S7). For example, new species have been recommended for risk assessments such as chocolate vine (Akebia quinata), shortlisted in the Horizon Scanning 2019 and commissioned in November 2020.

The permanent addition of Plant Alert to recording efforts in Britain and Ireland is key to its impact: the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland’s (BSBI) Head of Science, commented that many citizen science projects are “time-limited due to project funding and the data collected are often only available to the researchers involved in the projects” (S9). In contrast, records received through Plant Alert are integrated into BSBI’s database and accessible to other researchers and specialist users, whilst the maps are publicly available. Moreover, “Plant Alert is our first specifically designed recording scheme to include records of ornamental plants in gardens. This is important evidence as most non-natives in Britain and Ireland start as ornamentals in gardens and subsequently spread into surrounding habitats, with some having serious impacts on native biodiversity” (S9).

Because Plant Alert is integrated into the BSBI database, the data is available to the GB Non-native Species Information Portal, “which is a key tool within the GB Non-native Invasive Species mechanism and essential to our understanding of trends and spread in NNS [Non-native Species] and our reporting under the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation” (S7). BSBI confirmed that “reports received through Plant Alert have already informed the decision process” (S9). Plant Alert contributes to key actions of the GB Non-native Invasive Species Strategy (Defra 2015), including Action 3.6 (adopt and implement a clear process for regular horizon scanning of emerging threats, involving a broad range of stakeholders) and Action 4.3 (continue to work with existing recording networks and citizen science initiatives to improve surveillance for non-native species). Plant Alert is web-linked to the national “Be Plant Wise” campaign, recommended by the RHS as one of ‘7 Actions by Gardeners’ and included in Aberdeenshire Council’s ‘North East Non-Native Species’ advice on invasive plant management (S10).

As a result of widespread dissemination of R5 and R6 and supported by outreach and engagement activities, impact was generated in two key areas:

1. Contributing Evidence to EU Policy Decisions:

Findings from R5 were ‘essential input’ (p.5) in a report submitted by the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council (06.12.13), which cited specific results from the study (pp. 6, 8, 9 and 10) in discussing the case for local farming and a new short food chain labelling scheme [S1]. R5 thus contributed to the evidence base that informed the European Parliament’s decision to adopt new policy measures to support SFSC in Article 2 of EU Regulation No 1305/2013 on support for rural development. As a result of the measures, 300,000 farmers have been supported to develop SFSC, local markets, enter quality schemes and producer groups during 2014 – 2020 [S2].

Additionally, the 2016 European Parliamentary Briefing on Short Food Chains drew on R5 extensively, and was widely distributed [S3]. Outcomes of both R5 and R6 ‘contributed to the development of the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Work Programme’, which ‘resulted in many ongoing EU-funded R&I projects, such as SMARTCHAIN, FAIRCHAIN [and] FOX’ [S4]. The reports became important reference points for several of these projects; the Co-ordinator of the EU-funded Short Supply Chain and Knowledge Innovation Network (SKIN) stated that ‘definitions, concepts and case studies’ from R6 helped practitioners ‘to better define models and find alternative solutions to real cases encountered during the activities deployment” [S5].

2. Influencing Policies and Practices in EU Member States and Scotland:

In Scotland, R5 and R6 informed advocacy and policy development around SFSC and LFS, providing an evidence base for organisations. The Executive Director of Nourish Scotland confirmed that ‘core findings’ of the outputs ‘have been integral to our efforts to persuade Scottish Government and national agencies to invest more in SFSC and local food economies.’ As a result, ‘…this year's Programme for Government…includes a commitment to a national strategy for local food’, and the new post-COVID strategic plan for ‘Scotland Food and Drink… prioritises serving the local market.’ Both reports are considered ‘invaluable because they provide evidence… about the actual economic, environmental and social impacts’ of SFSCs, ‘rather than simply declaring that they are nice to have’ [S6].

In Croatia, insights from R5 and R6 were used to inform the AgriShort project (2017-18) which led to four new SFSC initiatives in the Croatian – Hungarian cross-border region [S7]. In 2017 Kneafsey contributed to the first training on SFSC delivered in the country, for farmers and institutional representatives; training materials she provided were subsequently used to inform the ‘Guidelines for Institutions’ to support SFSC in Croatia. Following this, the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture included SFSCs ‘in the new legislation on public procurement and organization of family farms’, establishing the definition of SFSC in legislation for the first time, amongst a ‘growing interest from a wider public’ [S7]. The former Head of Rural Development for the Međimurje region confirmed that the research helped them ‘choose the direction of local food system development in practice’, and develop practical guidance on SFSC. Whereas before there was no collaboration, now farmers were ‘willing to cooperate under the values of SFSC for the first time… thanks to the research, projects and trainings’ [S7].

In Poland R6 was used to shape the agenda of the 2016 ‘Food and Cities’ workshop, hosted by EIP-AGRI in Krakow. The President of the Polish Environmental Partnership noted it was unlikely that any other documents were ‘more influential in relation to promoting SFSCs in Poland’ [S8]. Describing it as ‘an important milestone and point of reference for policy, programming and planning’, the barriers and opportunities to ‘scaling’ SFSCs discussed in R6 provided evidence used to lobby for legislation to support ‘local food for local markets’. This contributed to regulatory changes in 2017-18 that enabled farmers to sell directly to consumers. R6 is directly referenced in guidance prepared in 2019 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, which is responsible for providing financial support for SFSC development.

In Hungary, policy picked up concepts from R5 and 66 million Euros were allocated to short food supply chains as a sub-programme of rural development policy. In 2015 a year of local products was initiated, and in 2016 the handbook of the rural development programme and handbook of local food products were published by Hungary’s Agricultural Chamber, drawing on materials from the study [S9]. In Austria, a senior representative of the Chamber of Agriculture confirmed that both R5 and R6 ‘made clear some characteristics of SFSCs, which are still used (e.g. the typology of SFSCs or that 1 intermediary is possible)’. The research helped raise awareness and drive ‘a clear political position’ in Austria ‘that SFSCs are important in many ways: economically, ecologically, socially’ [S10].