nextGEMS - Next Generation Earth Modelling Systems

Part of EU Open Research Repository
Published April 1, 2023 | Version v1
Journal article Open

User Selection and Engagement for Climate Services Coproduction

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Barcelona Supercomputing Centre, Centro Nacional de Supercomputación, Barcelona, Spain
  • 2. Barcelona Supercomputing Centre, Centro Nacional de Supercomputación, Barcelona, Spain; Research and Development Department, DNV Group. Oslo, Norway

Description

Abstract

Climate services are high on the international agenda for their potential to help combat the effects of
climate change. However, climate science is rarely directly incorporated into the decision-making processes of societal actors, due to what has been identified as the usability gap. This gap is partially due to a failure to timely and meaningfully engage users in the production of climate services, as well as misperceptions as to which users can best benefit from climate service uptake. In this article, we propose user selection and engagement guidelines that integrate important values from participatory science such as those of legitimacy, representativity, and agency. The guidelines consist of 5 1 1 steps: defining why, where, whom, which attributes, and which intensity and how to select and engage with stakeholders. While these steps may be initially implemented by an ideally interdisciplinary team of scientists and service designers, the final step consists of an iterative process by which each decision is agreed on together with the identified users and stakeholders under a coproduction approach. We believe this systematic user selection and engagement practice is key to support the design of climate services aligned to the actual needs of a wide and inclusive range of empowered societal agents.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: A review of the climate science and services literature and related research projects reveals that, despite the insistence to include users in all stages of the research process, users are often involved only sporadically and inconsistently and when there is little room to change the climate service suitable for decision-making. Here, we argue that a reason for this is the lack of user selection and engagement guidelines. Failure to implement a research design strategy for these decisions can lead to a lack of usability and applicability of the produced climate-related services, as well as hampering their long-term uptake. These guidelines can thus support the development of usable, coproduced, actionable climate science.

Notes

Acknowledgments. We acknowledge that the work presented in this paper is based on knowledge and experience that the authors gained from working on various projects, including the European Union–funded projects PRIMAVERA (641727), Advanced Prediction in Polar Regions and Beyond: Modelling, Observing System Design and Linkages Associated with a Changing Arctic Climate (APPLICATE) (727862), MEDGOLD (776467), EUCP (776613), the Next Generation Earth System Models (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101003470) (NextGEMS) (101003470), Impetus4Change (101081555), FOCUS-Africa (869575), and EUPORIAS (308291). The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. We thank the reviewers for allowing the paper to better reflect, curate, and frame our ideas. This work has been funded under the projects NextGEMS (101003470) and FOCUS-Africa (GA869575).

Files

1948-8335-WCAS-D-22-0112.1.pdf

Files (1.1 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:5e9d09df99c35b77a24b84d052ac5128
1.1 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Funding

European Commission
NextGEMS - Next Generation Earth Modelling Systems 101003470

References

  • Armitage, D. R., and Coauthors, 2009: Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ., 7, 95– 102, https://doi.org/10.1890/070089.
  • Athanasiou, P., A. van Dongeren, A. Giardino, M. I. Vousdoukas, R. Ranasinghe, and J. Kwadijk, 2020: Uncertainties in projec- tions of sandy beach erosion due to sea level rise: an analysis at the European scale. Sci. Rep., 10, 11895, https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-020-68576-0.
  • Barquet, K., L. Segnestam, and S. Dickin, 2022: MapStakes: A tool for mapping, involving and monitoring stakeholders in co-creation processes. Stockholm Environment Institute Rep., 22 pp., http://doi.org/10.51414/sei2022.014.
  • Baulenas, E., S. Kruse, and M. Sotirov, 2021: Forest and water policy integration: A process and output-oriented policy network analysis. Environ. Policy Governance, 31, 432–450, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1951.
  • Bednarek, A. T., and Coauthors, 2018: Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners' perspectives. Sus- tainability Sci., 13, 1175–1183, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 018-0550-9.
  • Beier, P., L. J. Hansen, L. Helbrecht, and D. Behar, 2017: A how- to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conserv. Lett., 10, 288–296, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12300.
  • Bell, K., and M. Reed, 2021: The tree of participation: A new model for inclusive decision-making. Community Dev. J., 57, 595–614, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsab018.
  • Bessembinder, J., M. Terrado, C. Hewitt, N. Garrett, L. Kotova, M. Buonocore, and R. Groenland, 2019: Need for a common typology of climate services. Climate Serv., 16, 100135, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.100135.
  • Biesbroek, R., and J. J. L. Candel, 2020: Mechanisms for policy (dis)integration: Explaining food policy and climate change adaptation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sci., 53, 61–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09354-2.
  • Bojovic, D., A. L. St. Clair, I. Christel, M. Terrado, P. Stanzel, P. Gonzalez, and E. J. Palin, 2021: Engagement, involvement and empowerment: Three realms of a coproduction frame- work for climate services. Global Environ. Change, 68, 102271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102271.
  • Bojovic, D., A. Nicodemou, A. L. St. Clair, I. Christel, and F. J. Doblas- Reyes, 2022: Exploring the landscape of seasonal forecast provision by Global Producing Centres. Climatic Change, 172, 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03350-x.
  • Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and J. C. Johnson, 2018: Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE Publishing, 384 pp.
  • Bourne, L., and D. H. T. Walker, 2005: Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manage. Decis., 43, 649–660, https:// doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680.
  • Bremer, S., and S. Meisch, 2017: Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 8, e482, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482.
  • Bremer, S., A. Wardekker, S. Dessai, S. Sobolowski, R. Slaattelid, and J. van der Sluijs, 2019: Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. Climate Serv., 13, 42–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.003.
  • Buontempo, C., and C. Hewitt, 2018: EUPORIAS and the devel- opment of climate services. Climate Serv., 9, 1–4, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.011.
  • Buontempo, C., and Coauthors, 2018: What have we learnt from EUPORIAS climate service prototypes? Climate Serv., 9, 21–32, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.003.
  • Buontempo, C., and Coauthors, 2020: Fostering the development of climate services through Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) for agriculture applications. Wea. Climate Extremes, 27, 100226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100226.
  • Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. J¨ager, and R. B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 8086–8091, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
  • Cash, D., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young, 2006: Scale and cross-scale dynam- ics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc., 11, 8, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208.
  • Christel, I., D. Hemment, D. Bojovic, F. Cucchietti, L. Calvo, M. Stefaner, and C. Buontempo, 2018: Introducing design in the development of effective climate services. Climate Serv., 9, 111–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.002.
  • Clifford, K. R., W. R. Travis, and L. T. Nordgren, 2020: A climate knowledges approach to climate services. Climate Serv., 18, 100155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100155.
  • Cologna, V., and N. Oreskes, 2022: Don't gloss over social sci- ence! A response to: Glavovic et al. (2021) 'the tragedy of climate change science'. Climate Dev., 14, 839–841, https:// doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2076647.
  • Daniels, E., S. Bharwani, Å. Gerger Swartling, G. Vulturius, and K. Brandon, 2020: Refocusing the climate services lens: Intro- ducing a framework for co-designing "transdisciplinary knowl- edge integration processes" to build climate resilience. Climate Serv., 19, 100181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100181.
  • de Bakker, F. G. A., and F. den Hond, 2008: Introducing the poli- tics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Bus. Soc., 47, 8–20, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650307306637.
  • Delzeit, R., T. Heimann, F. Schuenemann, M. S¨oder, F. Zabel, and M. Hosseini, 2021: Scenarios for an impact assessment of global bioeconomy strategies: Results from a co-design process. Res. Globalization, 3, 100060, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resglo.2021.100060.
  • Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos, 2011: Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environ. Change, 21, 680–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006.
  • Findlater, K., S. Webber, M. Kandlikar, and S. Donner, 2021: Cli- mate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nat. Climate Change, 11, 731–737, https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3.
  • Freeman, R. E., 2010: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press, 276 pp.
  • Gerring, J., 2016: Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 332 pp.
  • Glavovic, B. C., T. F. Smith, and I. White, 2022: The tragedy of climate change science. Climate Dev., 14, 829–833, https://doi. org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855.
  • Hajer, M., and W. Versteeg, 2005: A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspec- tives. J. Environ. Policy Plann., 7, 175–184, https://doi.org/10. 1080/15239080500339646.
  • Hewitt, C. D., N. Golding, P. Zhang, T. Dunbar, P. E. Bett, J. Camp, T. D. Mitchell, and E. Pope, 2020: The process and benefits of developing prototype climate services}Examples in China. J. Meteor. Res., 34, 893–903, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13351-020-0042-6.
  • Hill, R., F. J. Walsh, J. Davies, A. Sparrow, M. Mooney, Central Land Council, R. M. Wise, and M. Teng¨o, 2020: Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation pathways: Trans- form post-colonial articulation complexes to empower local decision-making. Global Environ. Change, 65, 102161, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102161.
  • Jepsen, A. L., and P. Eskerod, 2009: Stakeholder analysis in proj- ects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27, 335–343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2008.04.002.
  • Kalafatis, S. E., M. C. Lemos, Y.-J. Lo, and K. A. Frank, 2015: Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: The role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Global Environ. Change, 32, 30–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2015.02.007.
  • Klenk, N. L., K. Meehan, S. L. Pinel, F. Mendez, P. T. Lima, and D. M. Kammen, 2015: Stakeholders in climate science: Be- yond lip service? Science, 350, 743–744, https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.aab1495.
  • Lemos, M. C., and B. J. Morehouse, 2005: The co-production of sci- ence and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Envi- ron. Change, 15, 57–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004. 09.004.
  • March, H., L. Dom`enech, and D. Saur´ı, 2013: Water conservation campaigns and citizen perceptions: The drought of 2007–2008 in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Nat. Hazards, 65, 1951–1966, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0456-2.
  • Martin-Ortega, J., M. Gonz´alez-Eguino, and A. Markandya, 2011: The costs of drought: The 2007/2008 case of Barcelona. Water Policy, 14, 539–560, https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.121.
  • McCauley, D., and R. Heffron, 2018: Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014.
  • Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood, 1997: Toward a the- ory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manage. Rev., 22, 853–886, https://doi.org/10.2307/259247.
  • Mosley, L., 2013: Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University Press, 272 pp.
  • Neij, L., and E. Heiskanen, 2021: Municipal climate mitigation policy and policy learning}A review. J. Clean. Prod., 317, 128348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128348.
  • Nel, J. L., and Coauthors, 2016: Knowledge co-production and bound- ary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Con- serv. Biol., 30, 176–188, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12560.
  • Neville, B. A., and B. Menguc, 2006: Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stake- holders. J. Bus. Ethics, 66, 377–391, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-006-0015-4.
  • Norstr¨om, A. V., and Coauthors, 2020: Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustainability, 3, 182–190, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.
  • Oliva, J., C. Castaño, E. Baulenas, G. Dom´ınguez, J. R. Gonz´alez- Olabarria, and D. Oliach, 2016: The impact of the socioeco- nomic environment on the implementation of control measures against an invasive forest pathogen. For. Ecol. Manage., 380, 118–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.08.034.
  • Otto, J., and Coauthors, 2016: Uncertainty: Lessons learned for climate services. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, ES265–ES269, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0173.1.
  • Owen, G., D. B. Ferguson, and B. McMahan, 2019: Contextualiz- ing climate science: Applying social learning systems theory to knowledge production, climate services, and use-inspired research. Climatic Change, 157, 151–170, https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10584-019-02466-x.
  • Porter, J. J., and S. Dessai, 2017: Mini-me: Why do climate scien- tists' misunderstand users and their needs? Environ. Sci. Pol- icy, 77, 9–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.004.
  • Prell, C., K. Hubacek, and M. Reed, 2009: Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource manage- ment. Soc. Nat. Resour., 22, 501–518, https://doi.org/10. 1080/08941920802199202.
  • Provan, K. G., and P. Kenis, 2007: Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 18, 229–252, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.
  • Raaphorst, K., G. Koers, G. J. Ellen, A. Oen, B. Kalsnes, L. van Well, J. Koerth, and R. van der Brugge, 2020: Mind the gap: Towards a typology of climate service usability gaps. Sustainability, 12, 1512, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041512.
  • Reed, M. S., and Coauthors, 2009: Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource manage- ment. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1933–1949, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
  • Reed, M., and Coauthors, 2018: A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor. Ecol., 26 (Suppl.), S7–S17, https://doi. org/10.1111/rec.12541.
  • Reimann, L., B. Vollstedt, J. Koerth, M. Tsakiris, M. Beer, and A. T. Vafeidis, 2021: Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) to support local adaptation planning}A cli- mate service for Flensburg, Germany. Futures, 127, 102691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102691.
  • Reinecke, S., 2015: Knowledge brokerage designs and practices in four European climate services: A role model for biodiversity policies? Environ. Sci. Policy, 54, 513–521, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2015.08.007.
  • Rodriguez-Rey, D., and Coauthors, 2022: To what extent the traf- fic restriction policies applied in Barcelona city can improve its air quality? Sci. Total Environ., 807, 150743, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150743.
  • Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, G. Cundill, P. O'Farrell, and C. Fabricius, 2017: Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: Who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustainabil- ity Sci., 12, 711–726, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0.
  • Schiffer, E., 2007: The Power Mapping Tool: A method for the empirical research of power relations. IFPRI Discussion Paper 703, 25 pp., https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/ id/38994/.
  • Solaraju-Murali, B., D. Bojovic, N. Gonzalez-Reviriego, A. Nicodemou, M. Terrado, L.-P. Caron, and F. J. Doblas- Reyes, 2022: How decadal predictions entered the climate services arena: An example from the agriculture sector. Climate Serv., 27, 100303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser. 2022.100303.
  • Street, R. B., M. Parry, J. Scott, D. Jacob, and T. Runge, 2015: A European research and innovation roadmap for climate serv- ices. European Commission Directorate-General for Re- search and Innovation Doc., 561 pp., https://data.europa.eu/ doi/10.2777/702151.
  • Street, R., C. Buontempo, J. Mysiak, E. Karali, M. Pulquério, V. Murray, and R. Swart, 2019: How could climate services support disaster risk reduction in the 21st century. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 34, 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijdrr.2018.12.001.
  • Terrado, M., L. Calvo, and I. Christel, 2022: Towards more effec- tive visualisations in climate services: Good practices and rec- ommendations. Climatic Change, 172, 18, https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10584-022-03365-4.
  • Terrado, M., D. Bojovic, S. Octenjak, I. Christel, and A. L. St. Clair, 2023: Good practice for knowledge co-development through climate related case studies. Climate Risk Manage., 40, 100513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100513.
  • Thinyane, M., L. Goldkind, and H. I. Lam, 2018: Data collabora- tion and participation for sustainable development goals}A case for engaging community-based organizations. J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work, 3, 44–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-018- 0047-6.
  • van der Hel, S., 2016: New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy, 61, 165–175, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012.
  • Vaughan, C., S. Dessai, and C. Hewitt, 2018: Surveying climate serv- ices: What can we learn from a bird's-eye view? Wea. Climate Soc., 10, 373–395, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0030.1.
  • Walker, D. H. T., L. M. Bourne, and A. Shelley, 2008: Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Constr. Manage. Econ., 26, 645–658, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701882390.
  • Wilmer, H., and Coauthors, 2021: Expanded ethical principles for research partnership and transdisciplinary natural resource management science. Environ. Manage., 68, 453–467, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4.
  • Yang, R. J., 2014: An investigation of stakeholder analysis in ur- ban development projects: Empirical or rationalistic perspec- tives. Int. J. Proj. Manage., 32, 838–849, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.011.
  • Zingraff-Hamed, A., and Coauthors, 2020: Stakeholder map- ping to co-create nature-based solutions: Who is on board? Sustainability, 12, 8625, https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12208625.