Figure 1: Proportion of OPs which produce, use and fund R&D. Source: Internal Survey on R&D alignment (2009).
Figure 2: Logic model for EC’s R&D.
Figure 3: The performance measurement framework for EC’s R&D: alignment, linkages, enabling environment and excellence.
Box: Image of heat alert symbols. Credit: Toronto Public Health
Figure 4: R&D links among OPGs. Arrows point from R&D producers to users and represent the intensity of links (i.e., the number of times links between OPs were reported). Several “hubs” are apparent. The names of the various OPGs can be found in the Results Management Structure diagram in Appendix 2. Source: Internal Survey on R&D Alignment (2009).
Figure 5: Frequency of R&D sources used by OP leads who rely on R&D. Source: Internal Survey on R&D Alignment (2009).
Figure 6: Frequency of sectors identified as direct users of EC’s R&D. Source: Internal Survey on R&D Alignment (2009).
Figure 7: Major internal applications of R&D performed by EC (by percentage of OPs who perform R&D). Source: Internal Survey on R&D Alignment (2009).
Figure 8: EC’s collaboration rates (2003—2007). Note that some papers are published with both national and international partners, so the sum of international and national collaborations is greater than the total number of collaborations. Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009).
Table 1: Number of collaborations between EC scientists and various research institutions outside Canada (2003—2007). Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009). Top 10 collaborators: NOAA, NASA, USGS, CNRS - Centre national de la recherche scientifique, National Environmental Research Institute, University of Colorado at Boulder, Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Max Planck Society, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Figure 9: Proportion of national bilateral collaborations by sector (2003—2007). Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009).
Box: Photo of the National Wildlife Research Centre on Carleton University campus in Ottawa.
Figure 10: Network of collaborations among S&T branch directorates, EC branches and external national partners (2003—2007), showing the number of and the production of a given branch or directorate. The branches or directorates reflect the organization of the Department in September 2008. Source: Figure produced by Science-Metrix, from Scopus data (2009).
Table 2: Number of co-authored publications between EC scientists and research institutions in Canada (2003—2007). Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009). Top 10 collaborators: University of Toronto, Carleton University, University of Saskatchewan, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, University of Waterloo, University of Guelph, University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, McGill University, Simon Fraser University.
Figure 11: Average of relative citations (ARC) for the Department, by branch and by directorate, according to area of specialization (2003—2007). Only branches or directorates with a statistically significant number of articles in a given area are shown. Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009).
Box: cover of the 2006 Science-metrix report, 25 Years of Canadian Environmental Research
Figure 12: EC’s R&D production between 2003 and 2007. Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009).
Figure 13: Share of EC’s scientific publications by speciality. Source: Scopus data compiled by Science-Metrix (2009).
Box:
Figure 14: R&D spending at EC (current dollars). Source: Statistics Canada.
Figure 15: Federal R&D spending (current dollars). Source: Statistics Canada.
Figure 16: R&D Capital Expenditures at EC (current dollars). Source: Statistics Canada.
Box: Logo of the International Organization for Certification
Figure 17: R&D Personnel at EC. Note that the data for 2006-07 are estimates only. Source: Statistics Canada.
Figure 18: R&D Personnel in the Federal Government. Note that the data for 2006-07 are estimates only. Source: Statistics Canada.
Box: Image of working with sampling equipment. Credit: Bruce Harrison
Summary image: This image summarizes EC’s R&D performance in four key areas, based on the indicators listed in this report. Alignment, linkages and excellence were rated as “good”, while the enabling environment was rated as “fair”. No aspect of EC’s R&D was rated as “poor”.