As anthropogenic pressures on the environment grow, science-policy interaction is increasingly needed to support evidence-informed decision-making. However, there are many barriers to knowledge exchange (KE) at the science-policy interface, including difficulties evaluating its outcomes. The aims of this study are to synthesize the literature to elucidate the a) intended and b) claimed outcomes of KE processes at the interface of environmental science and policy, as well as the c) evidence used to evaluate them and d) methods used for collecting evaluation data. Results from systematically identifying and analyzing 397 articles show that co-production, knowledge brokerage, boundary organizations, and social connections were the most common strategies for KE. KE processes commonly aimed, claimed and referred to evidence regarding the usability of knowledge (e.g. credibility, salience, legitimacy) and social outcomes (e.g. networking, awareness, learning, trust-building). They also aimed for deeper policy/economic/societal impacts and actual use of scientific knowledge within decision-making. These additional goals, however, were seldom claimed to have been achieved, although products (e.g. maps/tools) and process attributes (e.g. equity, power-relations, transparency) were commonly used for evidencing impact. Hence, this study found that success from KE at the interface of environmental science and policy comes in diverse forms and showed a divergence between what studies aim for (ambitious) and what they evidence or claim as an achievement (more modest). This may represent failures of KE processes to reach intended goals, shortcomings in evaluation literature/approaches, or mismatches between timescales of evaluation and impact. Overall, this suggests a need to better align goals with evaluation measures to plan, facilitate, and appreciate the diverse impacts of KE processes.

随着对环境的人为压力的增加，越来越需要科学政策互动来支持循证决策。然而，在科学政策界面进行知识交流 (KE) 存在许多障碍，包括难以评估其结果。本研究的目的是综合文献，以阐明 a)预期和 b) KE 过程在环境科学和政策界面上的声称结果，以及 c)证据d) 用于收集评估数据的方法。系统地识别和分析 397 篇文章的结果表明，共同生产、知识中介、边界组织和社会联系是 KE 最常见的策略。KE 过程通常针对、声称和参考关于知识可用性（例如可信度、显着性、合法性）和社会结果（例如网络、意识、学习、建立信任）的证据。他们还致力于在决策中产生更深层次的政策/经济/社会影响和科学知识的实际使用。然而，尽管产品（例如地图/工具）和流程属性（例如公平、权力关系、透明度）通常用于证明影响，但这些额外的目标很少声称已经实现。因此，这项研究发现 KE 在环境科学和政策的界面上取得的成功有多种形式，并且表明研究的目标（雄心勃勃）与他们证明或声称的成就（更温和）之间存在分歧。这可能代表 KE 流程未能达到预期目标、评估文献/方法存在缺陷，或评估时间尺度与影响之间的不匹配。总体而言，这表明需要更好地将目标与评估措施保持一致，以规划、促进和了解 KE 过程的各种影响。这可能代表 KE 流程未能达到预期目标、评估文献/方法存在缺陷，或评估时间尺度与影响之间的不匹配。总体而言，这表明需要更好地将目标与评估措施保持一致，以规划、促进和了解 KE 过程的各种影响。这可能代表 KE 流程未能达到预期目标、评估文献/方法存在缺陷，或评估时间尺度与影响之间的不匹配。总体而言，这表明需要更好地将目标与评估措施保持一致，以规划、促进和了解 KE 过程的各种影响。