There is a demand for scientific knowledge to make informed decisions in environmental policy. This study examines expectations of knowledge use, and how knowledge stemming from systematic reviews (SR) is being used through an analytical framework that distinguishes between instrumental, conceptual and legitimising evaluation use, as well as between process and product use. Empirically, we investigate knowledge generated from six SRs conducted through the Mistra Council for Evidence-based Environmental Management from the perspectives of those carrying out the SR and their targeted stakeholders. Our study reveals ways in which SRs are used and some characteristics that improve and some that hamper their usefulness. While the systematic method and the comprehensiveness of the SRs contribute positively to the usefulness, we found that the SRs produced were simultaneously too focused (lacking multiple perspectives), and too general (providing evidence on the effects of an intervention only at the general level) thereby restricting their usefulness. The time and resources it takes to produce an SR can also affect its usefulness compared to a traditional review.

需要科学知识来在环境政策中做出明智的决定。本研究考察了对知识使用的期望，以及如何通过一个分析框架来使用来自系统评价 (SR) 的知识，该分析框架区分了工具性、概念性和合法化的评估使用，以及过程和产品的使用。根据经验，我们从执行 SR 及其目标利益相关者的角度调查通过 Mistra 循证环境管理委员会执行的六个 SR 产生的知识。我们的研究揭示了 SR 的使用方式以及一些改进的特性和一些阻碍其有用性的特性。虽然 SR 的系统方法和全面性对实用性做出了积极贡献，我们发现，所产生的 SR 同时过于集中（缺乏多重视角），而且过于笼统（仅在一般层面提供干预效果的证据），从而限制了它们的有用性。与传统审查相比，生成 SR 所需的时间和资源也会影响其有用性。