Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Valuing the Contributions of National Earth and Environmental Science Facilities Forum Members: Pilot Impact Assessment

Authors: Lateral Economics;

Valuing the Contributions of National Earth and Environmental Science Facilities Forum Members: Pilot Impact Assessment

Abstract

This report presents the results of Lateral Economics’ (LE’s) pilot impact assessment of the National Earth and Environmental Science Facilities Forum (NEESFF). The Forum brings together Australia’s leading earth and environmental science research infrastructure facilities with the aim of ensuring that national investments deliver maximum scientific, economic, and societal value. This study is only a pilot impact assessment because NEESFF encompasses such a diverse range of organisations that it is impossible to fully capture and assess all its impacts without undertaking a wider and more extensive program of work than scoped out for this project. As part of the project, LE consulted with all NEESFF organisations (see Appendix A), and obtained insights into the benefits offered by each of them. However, it was not possible within the scope of work to undertake quantification of benefits and costs for all organisations. Instead, we focussed on three case studies from three different organisations. We applied a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) framework to evaluate the contributions of selected facilities. The three case studies were of the: Atlas of Living Australia (ALA); Australian Plant Phenomics Network (APPN); and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN). This allowed for a systematic comparison of the costs of infrastructure provision against the broad range of benefits these facilities generate. These benefits include scientific outputs, support for industry innovation, environmental management improvements, and contributions to national resilience in the face of climate, natural hazard, and resource challenges. A CBA is essential to evaluate the case for public investment in NEESFF organisations. Individual NEESFF organisations capture excellent metrics around user uptake, science impact through publication tracking systems, and user satisfaction through surveys, but lack the capability to evaluate economic benefits to support their conversations with co-investors, project partners and governments. We have combined the results of three new case studies of NEESFF organisations with the results of previous studies to estimate an average benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for NEESFF organisations of 6.8 (Table A). Using this average BCR and based on estimated total NEESFF annual public funding of \$235 million, we estimate that total annual NEESFF benefits exceed \$1.5 billion.

Keywords

NEESFF, NCRIS, National Research Infrastructure

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average