Refining TANDEM - Step 1: TANDEM transdisciplinary knowledge co-production framework refined and iteratively applied

M15 Refining TANDEM Step 1: TANDEM transdisciplinary knowledge co-production framework refined and iteratively applied Tuesday, 26 August 2025 Authors list: Janne Parviainen1, Sukaina Bharwani1, Lydia Cumiskey2, 1. STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE 2. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK 2 Report overview Project number 101073978 Project acronym DIRECTED Project name Disaster Resilience for Extreme Climate Events providing Interoperable Data, Models, Communication and Governance Call HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01 Topic HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01-02 Type of action HORIZON Innovation Action Responsible service European Research Executive Agency Project starting date 01/10/2022 Project duration 4 years Period covered 1 October 2022 – 30 December 2023 Milestone due date 30 December 2023, submitted August 2024 3 Document history Version Date Comment 1 01.02.2024 First draft 2 15.03.2024 Second draft 3 13.08.2024 Final version ready for submission 4 26.08.2025 Reworked version for upload to Zenodo 4 Table of Contents Report overview .................................................................................................................... 2 Document history .................................................................................................................. 3 1. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Tandem framework for co-production ................................................................................ 6 3. The evolution of Tandem................................................................................................... 8 4. Tandem in RWLs ............................................................................................................ 11 4.1. Identifying and engaging stakeholders ...................................................................... 13 4.2 Scoping risks, vulnerability and impacts .................................................................... 14 5. Evaluating Tandem ......................................................................................................... 16 6. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 21 References ......................................................................................................................... 22 Partners .............................................................................................................................. 23 Table of Figures Figure 1: Iterative steps of the first Tandem framework for co-designing climate services (Daniels et al., 2019). ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2: Constituent elements of the Tandem framework (Daniels et al., 2020) ................... 9 Figure 3: Updated Tandem framework, emphasizing the iterative, complex and non-linear process (Bharwani et al., 2024). .......................................................................................... 10 Index of Tables Table 1: Tandem co-production phases. Source: Bharwani et al., 2024. ............................. 17 Table 2: Tandem qualitative coding framework. .................................................................. 18 5 1. Overview WP 4 (led by SEI) will iteratively apply and refine the Tandem co-production framework (Daniels et al., 2020) in collaboration with WP 1 (RWLs) and within the wider Risk-Tandem process (WP 3) and as outlined in D1.2 (Capacity Development Strategy for the Training of Trainers). The refinement will be based on empirical evidence, lessons learned, emerging challenges and potential solutions. Collation and analysis of this evidence will be done between M6-48 to further refine Tandem into replicable, proven, and tested guidance for transdisciplinary co-production and information interoperability within Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) contexts, leading to deliverable D4.3. This milestone lays the foundation for periodic reporting (M16-18) leading to D4.3 in M48 by: 1) explaining the conceptual framework and practical guidance underpinning the design of coproduction process in DIRECTED; 2) starting to collate experiences and challenges regarding co-production through qualitative data from interviews, consultations, workshops, surveys, and other engagements with RWLs 1 during 2023; 3) reviewing progress and initial observations from the RWLs; 4) documenting the methodology that will be used to collect, systematically analyze and update the Tandem framework throughout the project (M16-18); and, 5) providing recommendations for strengthening the Tandem cycle to support its improved implementation in CCA-DRM contexts, and as a part of the wider implementation of Risk-Tandem in collaboration with WP 3. For partners beyond WP 4, the analysis that will be documented in periodic Tandem milestone reports will provide insights for transforming governance mechanisms (WP 3), developing transformative tools (WP 2), and informing the needs of users for the Data Fabric (WP 5) to increase interoperability for improved CCA and DRM. In terms of wider application, periodic evaluation of the Tandem approach, will seek to identify and leverage different conditions of the framework’s applicability to DRM and CCA in a range of decision contexts, to further refine the existing guidance to enable it to be more easily applied elsewhere and at scale. 1 RWL: Copenhagen (RWL 1), Emilia-Romagna (RWL 2), Danube (RWL 3), Zala (RWL 3), Erftverband (RWL 4). 6 2. Tandem framework for coproduction The Tandem framework was initially developed to address the disconnect between research policy and adaptation action (Klein and Juhola, 2014), with a particular focus on enabling collaboration for the purposes of co-designing and co-developing adaptation solutions toward long-term climate resilience and sustainability. It represents an attempt to “refocus climate services lens” (Daniels, et al., 2020), moving from products toward process-oriented engagement in which users and providers of climate information increase its usability and impact. There are also co-benefits: continued engagement is likely to generate intangible outputs – including confidence, trust and increased capacity (supporting D1.2) – which are required to support planning and implementation of adaptation actions (ibid.). During its lifetime, the framework has been refined and further developed based on its application across various decision-making contexts. The first version (Figure 1) was developed iteratively to guide the strengthening of climate services 2 beyond supply-driven and unidirectional approaches, which often limit the usability of climate information available for decision-makers (ibid.). Based on comprehensive literature reviews and lessons derived from the implementation of the FRACTAL project in Lusaka, Zambia, Tandem was established to embed the design of climate services within institutional and decision-making contexts, in efforts to improve their relevance, usability and sustainability. In Zambia, participatory processes and engagements supporting the integration and use of climate information was applied to urban water security concerns in particular (Daniels, et al., 2019). Applied within Learning Labs, researchers sought to enable the co-exploration of “adaptation challenges” through a transdisciplinary approach involving city council departments, water utility companies, Disaster Risk Management authorities, meteorological services and civil society organizations. Through the engagement, water insecurity and limited access to safe drinking water emerged as a priority concern, especially in peri-urban areas (ibid.). This engagement led to the first iteration of the Tandem framework for co-designing climate services (Figure 1), in efforts to structure and guide the process of knowledge co-production (sometimes critiqued due to its lack of empirical evidence and practical methodologies), through a set of guiding questions 3 that can support its implementation. 2 Which can encapsulate numerous methods and approaches, including future climate risk modelling, loss and damage assessments, risk/impact assessments, and so on. 3 https://weadapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Tandem-Guidance-2024-final.pdf 7 Steps 1 (identify adaptation challenges) and 2 (identify and engage with potential users and collaborators) sought to support the building of a shared understanding of adaptation challenges that could benefit from the integration of climate information. To enable coexploration, it was necessary to also support the identification of actors who would have a role/could influence the scoping and management of the adaptation challenge (either users of climate services, or its providers and intermediaries). The inclusion of local intermediaries was also highlighted, in efforts to facilitate the integration and sharing of indigenous, traditional or practice-based knowledges. Steps 3 (gaining understanding of desired objectives and identifying early actions and existing services) and 4 (building an understanding of institutional and decisionmaking contexts) closely follow. Building upon diverse knowledges, this sought to guide the scoping of the context and challenges where the support of climate services is needed, as well as the scoping of institutional arrangements behind them. Creating and finding opportunities for coordination and collaboration across stakeholders was highlighted, including the exploration of constraints and barriers that may shape potential objectives (and the codesign process). Steps 5 (co-explore data and information needs, sources, formats, and modes of dissemination) and 6 (appraisal of adaptation options) represent the stage where decision methods, data, information needs and modes of dissemination can be co-explored. In Figure 1: Iterative steps of the first Tandem framework for co-designing climate services (Daniels et al., 2019). 8 particular, users’ specific needs, narratives and perspectives were discussed, in relation to available planning tools, data, risk maps or impact models. This information could then be used to co-develop decision-support methods, and to identify, appraise and prioritize interventions fit-for-purpose and context. Steps 7 (maintaining, evaluating, and upgrading the service). The final step intended to co-explore how services can become institutionally embedded, evaluated, and refined as user needs evolve, in consideration of actors’ roles and responsibilities. Capacity development and partnership building, sustainable financing models, and building in monitoring, evaluation and learning activities were highlighted as cross-cutting components supporting the implementation of the initial Tandem process. They were integrated in consideration of the institutional and institutional capacity gaps and needs often affecting providers, intermediaries, and users of climate services. In addition, collaborations, partnerships and financing the delivery of services were highlighted, since product-driven and siloed innovation alone tends to fall short in achieving long-term socio-economic benefits and sustainable integration of climate information into decision-making. Finally, to fully understand and iteratively refine knowledge co-production, the centrality of MEL was introduced, including the co-development of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of the design process, and the service itself. 3. The evolution of Tandem Based on the implementation process (and lessons learned) under the FRACTAL project, and a survey targeting climate services stakeholders, Tandem was further refined (Daniels, et al., 2020, Figure 2). Building on the steps as identified in figure 1., Tandem was expanded to provide a clearer illustration of the non-linearity of the knowledge co-production process (often requiring a return to the previous steps during progress to integrate feedback and learning toward long-term change). Although the steps remained largely the same, they were separated into distinct phases and revised to support the application to a wider range of contexts (based on an analysis of the climate information co-production process in Lusaka, seeking to identify the process “elements” and “characteristics” that have led to positive change). The guiding questions sought to aid the process of creating a shared understanding, networks, trust and shifts in perspectives toward increased resilience and sustainability via lessons learned (Daniels, et al. 2020). Based on the urban case study in Lusaka (as well as the accompanying survey and literature reviews), the elements were solidified to support others in implementing iterative-yet-structured knowledge co-production processes and strengthen its underpinning philosophy emphasizing trusted communication as a solution to complex adaptation challenges. 9 The most recent iteration of Tandem was developed based on its application in three case studies in rural community in Indonesia, two cities in Sweden, and with communities in a river basin in Colombia (Bharwani, et al., 2024). The interactive guidance can be found here: https://weadapt.org/tandem/. It was applied to diverse problems, including addressing the impacts of climate change to agriculture (Indonesia), supporting planners in addressing climate-related flood impacts and heat stress (Sweden), and tackling the issues of water scarcity and equitable use (Colombia). The framework provided several benefits, including: 1) moving from ‘useful’ to ‘usable’ information by building trust; 2) increasing institutional embedding through strengthened relationships and networks; 3) improving climate information uptake and use; 4) increasing capacity, confidence and a shared understanding of climate information by users, and the decision context by providers; and, 5) serving as a nonprescriptive guide for users, intermediaries and providers to co-design and structure an effective process for collaborative learning and action. Figure 2: Constituent elements of the Tandem framework (Daniels et al., 2020). 16 5. Evaluating Tandem For assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of the Tandem co-production approach in DIRECTED, this milestone will use the same methodology to compare and assess RWL needs, potential entry points and barriers that may hinder the implementation of activities as intended under DIRECTED. It gathers data from activities as described under section 2, as well as the Deliverable 1.1, and findings from workshops/interviews arranged by the RWLs. Where possible, qualitative data from these engagements was added to AtlasTI software, and an abductive thematic analysis (Thompson, 2022) was conducted to code source material to identify emerging themes and commonly shared challenges (or opportunities) across the RWLs in various categories that naturally emerged from the data (D1.2, Annex VII). Coding was followed by thematic categorization, following the most recent Tandem co-production phases (Table 1) and guiding questions of the Tandem framework 8 (Bharwani et al., 2024), during which codes were consolidated into wider semantic and conceptual themes, encapsulating a multitude of information to effectively portray phenomena (such as “challenges of risk governance”, “challenges to co-production”, or “hazards”). Though not all identified codes and themes appear to relate to co-production per se, they were included in the analysis given that the purpose of Tandem in DIRECTED is to integrate co-production within risk governance activities through Risk-Tandem (D3.1). The approach to coding – which will continue to evolve – is available in D1.2 (Annex VII). The codebook itself is not included as it is a living document. To support the qualitative data analysis and Tandem approach, questions were coded into specific evaluation categories (“sub-codes”) that can provide information about its theoretically ‘optimal’ integration toward impact and change (“impact codes”) (Table 2). However, considering the early stages of implementation – and since much of 2023 was dedicated to operationalizing the labs – this milestone does not yet assess or evaluate impacts, but focuses on the design of the evaluation approach using Tandem phases and associated questions. Combining the coding frameworks from Tandem and the inductive approach emerging from data from the RWL will allow a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of the co-production process throughout DIRECTED. Results from this analysis will be documented in subsequent milestones (M16-18). Thus far, data mainly focuses on Scoping/reviewing risks, vulnerability and impacts, and Identifying and Engaging stakeholders (Figure 3). Tandem guidance has been coded with the integration of considerations for risk reduction and governance as appropriate (Table 2). 8 https://weadapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Tandem-Guidance-2024-final.pdf 17 Table 1: Tandem co-production phases. Source: Bharwani et al., 2024. 18 Table 2: Tandem qualitative coding framework. Tandem Element MEL Element9 Theme Sub-code Impact code10 Scope, review identify and engage Context-based Risks, vulnerability and challenges (climate and nonclimate) Natural hazards/disaster risks Holistic overview of risks and vulnerabilities. Climate and disaster risks Non-climate/disaster risks Socio-economic vulnerabilities Impacts Natural hazards/disasters Holistic overview of impacts. Environmental impacts Climate and disaster impacts Pluralistic Non-climate/disaster impacts Socio-economic impacts Identified and engaged relevant actors and champions Stakeholders relating to climate/risk information and data Increased awareness and understanding of knowledge and stakeholder landscape. Stakeholders involved in decisionmaking process Stakeholders vulnerable/at risk Knowledge systems engaged with Improved communication (e.g. trust, dialogue, co-production, language). Methods of engagement used Co-explore challenges and goals Socio-economic challenges (e.g. income, education) Decision-making challenges (e.g. representation, responsibilities, data) Communication challenges (e.g. language, terminology, channels) 9 Norström et al., 2020. 10 Potential results from application, not assessed in this milestone. 19 Co-explore Goal-oriented Adaptation challenges (e.g. climate, social, economic, political, environmental) Creating shared understanding - consensus building around priorities, where it was absent previously, for example. Co-explore governance context Windows of opportunity Increased understand of governance levers of change. Institutional capacity/arrangements Existing plans, policies, and projects Governance mechanism Funding Co-explore information needs Appropriate format Increased awareness and understanding of challenges, risks, and impacts faced through enhanced understanding of the use and limits of data/models. Relevant language Accessible terminology Capacity to articulate needs Information channel Appropriate scales (relevant to temporal and spatial scales of decision) Co-design solutions Co-explore and identify solutions Relevant to decision context Solutions that provide increased resilience to climate and disaster risk. Salience (priority need) Credibility (trusted) Appraise solutions Preferences Limiting interpretation due to underlying socio-cultural or technical assumptions. Creating prejudiced points of view. Uncertainty Maladaptation Compound risks Cascading risks Multiple hazards Synergies or co-benefits Trade-offs 20 Assumptions Cognitive bias Co-design solutions Applicability Moving from useful to usable information. Usability Desired needs met Integrate new knowledge and partners Interactive Communication Tailored communication of climate information Increased/continuous information sharing and exchange. More open modes of collaboration/communication. Tailored communication of non-climate information Format Language Terminology Capacity Information channel Capacity development Capacities Increased capacity and confidence of both providers and users of disaster and climate risk information. Confidence building Increased understanding of the decision context Increased understanding of the use and limits of climate information. Partnership development Strengthened relationships, partnerships and networks Increased access to resources (e.g. information/networks/models). Financing models Embedded Sustainability and legacy. Operationalized Institutionalized Tandem coding will be used to identify patterns and topics central for effectively implementing co-production within risk governance with the RWLs (and not evaluating performance of the RWLs per se). This structuring will also be used to reflect the ability of the Tandem questions to adequately structure the implementation of co-production in risk governance contexts, and to identify gaps or areas for improvement, with a particular focus on practice. 21 6. Recommendations As documented in this milestone, numerous opportunities and challenges have emerged from the RWL engagements, all with potential to inform and refine the Tandem framework in risk governance contexts and to enhance by data interoperability. However, as a non-prescriptive guide – applied through training of trainers and in the absence of co-production practitioners or researchers embedded in the RWL context (Taylor et al., 2021) – it is also at risk of falling short in achieving its intended goals unless challenges as described above, and in the comparative analysis are accounted for. The following priorities have been distilled for the remainder of project: 1. For RWL hosts, there is a need to: develop facilitation skills guidance; provide practical examples for knowledge co-production activities e.g. using serious games; and, provide suggestions for structuring workshops. Staff turnover during project lifetimes is a considerable challenge in designing and implementing long-term coproduction processes, which require the capacity development of a wide range of participants to ensure institutional legacy (Bharwani, et al., 2024). 2. To provide evidence for further iterations of Tandem developed in closer coordination with partners, a clear MEL framework should be established for the co-production process that accounts for ‘soft’ or intangible outcomes of co-production, which make them challenging to measure (Bharwani et al., 2024). Thus, the knowledge coproduction process with RWLs requires a co-designed MEL strategy for monitoring Tandem and its application through capacity development (see D1.2). 3. An approach is needed to expand the current set-up of the RWLs to cover vulnerable groups/persons at risk, and to assess them in terms of power relationships. For this purpose, tailored workshops and capacity development may be beneficial, alongside exercises dedicated to addressing sensitive questions (such as social network mapping for identifying power relations, or assessing questions of gender equality). 4. Currently, the Tandem guidance does not guide the mainstreaming of co-production to address questions such as risk communication or strengthening the delivery of early warnings at the last mile. In addition, clearer guidance is required to guide the integration of DRR and CCA through co-production with an assessment focusing on their synergies in situ. As such, Tandem can usefully be developed and adapted to guide the distillation of user needs to enhance data and model interoperability (D4.3) for DRM and CCA. 5. Explore ways to build the capacity of providers to understand the decision context as much as the capacity of stakeholders to understand the use and limits of climate information (Bharwani et al., 2024). Building capacity and bridging disciplinary and ‘knowledge’ divides will be achieved through the implementation of the capacity development strategy (D1.2). 6. Strengthening institutional capacity, particularly from a systems perspective to support long term change and sustainability, once the individual capacity of key stakeholders at different levels is achieved in DIRECTED, is a long-term ambition. 22 References Barrott, J., Bharwani, S., & Brandon, K. (2020). Transforming knowledge management for climate action: a road map for accelerated discovery and learning [PLACARD project]. PLACARD project, FC.ID: Lisbon. https://www.placard-network.eu/transformingknowledge-management-for-climate-action/ Bharwani, S., Gerger Swartling, Å., André, K., Santos Santos, T. F., Salamanca, A., Biskupska, N., Takama, T., Järnberg, L., & Liu, A. (2024). Co-designing in Tandem: Case study journeys to inspire and guide climate services. Climate Services, 35, 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100503 Daniels, E., Bharwani, S. and Butterfield, S. (2019) ‘The Tandem Framework: A Holistic Approach to Co-designing Climate Services’, SEI Brief, Oxford: Stockholm Environment Institute Daniels, E., Bharwani, S., Gerger Swartling, A., Vulturius, G. and Brandon, K. (2020) 'Refocusing the Climate Services Lens: Introducing a Framework for Co-designing "Transdisciplinary Knowledge Integration Process" to Build Climate Resilience', Climate Services, 19 Klein, R. J. T. and Juhola, S. (2014) ‘A Framework for Nordic Actor-Oriented Climate Adaptation Research’, Environmental Science and Policy, 40, pp. 101-115 A. Taylor, L. Pretorius, A. McClure, K.N. Iipinge, B. Mwalukanga, R. Mamombe. Embedded researchers as transdisciplinary boundary spanners strengthening urban climate resilience. Environ. Sci. Policy, 126 (2021), pp. 204-212, 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.002 23 Partners