Assessing the Quality of Knowledge for Adaptation–Experiences From Co-designing Climate Services in Sweden

Abstract

Adaptation to climate change is becoming more urgent, but the wealth of knowledge that informs adaptation planning and decision-making is not used to its full potential. Top-down approaches to knowledge production are identified as one important reason for the gap between science and practice and are criticized for not meeting the needs of intended users. In response to this challenge, there is a growing interest in the creation of user-oriented and actionable climate services to support adaptation. At the same time, recent research suggests that greater efforts are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge co-production processes and the best criteria by which to gauge the quality of knowledge outcomes, while also considering different stakeholder perspectives. This paper explores these issues through a critical assessment of the quality of knowledge for adaptation generated from a climate services co-design process in two case studies in Sweden. The study draws on experiences from a 5-year research collaboration in which natural and social science researchers, together with local stakeholders, co-designed climate services to support climate adaptation planning and decision-making. The well-established knowledge quality criteria of credibility, legitimacy, saliency, usability, and usefulness remain relevant, but are not sufficient to capture factors relating to whether and how the knowledge actually is applied by climate change adaptation planners and decision-makers. We observe that case-specific circumstances beyond the scope of the co-design process, including the decision-making context as well as non-tangible outcomes, also play crucial roles that should be accounted for in the knowledge assessment processes.

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Coastal Resilience: A Stakeholder Surveys

“…Challenges related to human factors, governmental coordination, budget availability, uncertainty in climate projections and models, and the incorporation of past data into resilience models are also mentioned. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the stakeholders' responses were rarely beyond their day-to-day field point of view, agreeing with the notes of researchers in similar cases [41,42].…”

Knowledge exchange in the implementation of National Environmental Programmes (NEPs) in China: A complex picture

“…Even in developed economies, engaging actors are advised to acknowledge and take actions to mitigate wider challenging social contexts when adhering to best practices in multi-stakeholder collaboration [ 55 ]. André et al (2021) noted that even when knowledge is co-produced with scientists, practitioners do not always find it actionable as they are also balancing other local needs [ 17 ]. Indeed, when implementation of environmental policies touches the ground and begins to intervene in the complex social-ecological systems, many sectors and lifelines are affected [ 56 ].…”

Four Methodological Guidelines to Evaluate the Research Impact of Co-produced Climate Services

“…Theory of change is designed to support interventions subject to complexity and uncertainty, which makes it fit for co-production processes that address climate risks. Furthermore, climate services cannot be considered in isolation from the context they operate in as decision-makers combine different sources of information when planning for adaptation (Zscheischler et al, 2018;André et al, 2021). Theory of change acknowledges these external influences by identifying and monitoring them, ultimately strengthening any causal claims (van Es et al, 2015).…”