D2.3 Preliminary report on user-centred validation of the integration of climate action information

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101037293 Deliverable D2.3 Preliminary report on user-centred validation of the integration of climate action information September 2023 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101037293 Innovating Climate services through Integrating Scientific and local Knowledge Deliverable Title: Preliminary report on user-centred validation of the integration of climate action information Author(s): Nuria Hernández-Mora, Lucia De Stefano, Nikoletta Ropero Contributing Authors(s): Marije Schaafsma, Micha Werner, Ilyas Masih Alexandros Ziogas, Paolo Mazzoli, Stefano Bagli, Francesca Renzi, Vakho Chitishvili, Miranda Apakidze, Megi Gamtkitsulashvili, Schalk Jan van Andel Date [March, 2023] Suggested citation: Hernández-Mora, N., De Stefano, L., Ropero, N. et al., 2023: Preliminary report on user-centred validation of the integration of climate action information, I-CISK Deliverable 2.3, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources Availability: ☒ PU: This report is public ☐ CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document Revisions: Author Revision Date [Author(s)] [Version] [Revision date] Nuria Hernández-Mora, Lucia De Stefano and Nikoletta Ropero First draft February 2023 Marije Schaafsma Internal review / feedback WP2 February-March 2023 Nuria Hernández-Mora, Lucia De Stefano and Nikoletta Ropero Second draft March 2023 Micha Werner & Ilyas Masih PI review /feedback March 2023 Nuria Hernández-Mora, Lucia De Stefano and Nikoletta Ropero Final Report March 2023 Project Officer 18 month review PO review/feedback July 2023 Nuria Hernández-Mora, Lucia De Stefano and Nikoletta Ropero Final revised report September 2023 D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information i Executive Summary Climate services (CS) are critical elements to support decisions for adaptation to climate-related risks and climate change impacts. In order to be effective, CS need to be tailored to the knowledge, experience and needs of the users and the contexts in which decisions are being made. The goal of Task 2.3 is to map the option space and experience of end-users, and co-create a set of relevant climate risk management measures that can be informed and supported by user-centred CS. Task 2.3 aims to create an overview of local knowledge related to the possible climate change adaptation options and resulting information needs through consultation with member of the multi-actor platforms in each of the Living Labs (LL) that are part of I-CISK. This Deliverable 2.3, Preliminary report on user-centred validation of the integration of climate action information, proposes a methodological approach to help I-CISK LL gather information on adaptation options, information needs to inform decision making processes, and the necessary climate services to improve the decision-making space. It also presents preliminary results gathered from the LL through a questionnaire and a variety of participatory methods already used in the different living labs – interviews, focus groups, surveys and workshops. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information ii Acronyms CAP - Common agricultural policy CS - Climate service DRR - Disaster risk reduction GDP - Gross domestic product KPI - Key performance indictor LL - Living laboratories MAP - Multi actor platform RBD - River Basin District RER - Emilia Romagna Region WP - Work package D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... i Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 2. Integration of climate information into adaptation decisions: T2.3 within the I-CISK Framework for cocreating climate services ......................................................................................................................................2 3. .Methodological approach to understand the adaptation option space in I-CISK living labs ......................4 3.1. Exploratory mapping of the adaptation decision space .......................................................................5 3.2. Identification of enhanced adaptation options and barriers for implementation ...............................7 3.3. Exploring opportunities for social learning and knowledge exchange.................................................9 4. Preliminary results from the living labs ..................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Contextual information of the living lab............................................................................................ 11 4.2. Adaptation options currently implemented to minimize the impacts of climate-risk(s) .................. 14 4.3. Information used to make adaptation decisions............................................................................... 18 4.4. Potential additional adaptation measures and required context-adapted climate services ............ 21 4.5. What are the barriers to adopt and implement new, improved or more effective adaptation measures? ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.6. Enablers that leverage the implementation of new, improved or more effective adaptation measures ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29 5. Conclusions and future work ..................................................................................................................... 30 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Annex 1. Living Lab Stakeholder / Participant Questionnaire: Information on climate actions to be supported by climate services ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Annex 2. Worksheets used in the Andalucía Living Lab multiactor platform workshop to identify adaptation options and climate service needs .................................................................................................................... 41 D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information iv List of Figures Figure 1: Co-creation of user-centred climate services: building blocks of the process that take place in a LL context (Source: I-CISK, 2022). .............................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: PERTT Diagram showing the I-CISK project structure ...........................................................................3 Figure 3: Conceptual framework for the investigation and mapping of the adaptation decisions option space. Source: Own elaboration. .....................................................................................................................................4 Figure 5: Individual work (A and B) for identification of adaptation measures, barriers and climate service needs, and plenary session (C, D and E). ........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6: Ranking of the relative importance of different sources of knowledge for adaptation decisions .... 20 D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information v List of Tables Table 1. Relationship between desired outputs and possible tools .....................................................................7 Table 2. Relationship between desired outputs and possible outcomes.............................................................8 Table 3. Questionnaire responses received and respondents .......................................................................... 10 Table 4. Contextual information for each living lab .......................................................................................... 12 Table 5. Drought and scarcity adaptation options in the Emilia Romagna region LL ........................................ 15 Table 6. Currently used adaptation measures in the Crete (Greece) LL ........................................................... 16 Table 7. Currently used adaptation measures in the Rijnland LL ...................................................................... 16 Table 8. Currently used adaptation measures in the Andalucía LL ................................................................... 18 Table 9. Information used to make adaptation decisions ................................................................................. 19 Table 10. Relative importance of different sources of information in making adaptation decisions ............... 20 Table 11. New and improved adaptation options and required context-adapted climate services ................ 21 Table 12. Characterization of required climate services for the Alazani, Budapest, Emilia Romagna and Crete living labs ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 13. Characterization of required climate services for the Rijnland living lab .......................................... 27 Table 14. Characterization of required climate services for the Andalucía living lab ....................................... 27 Table 15. Barriers to adopt and implement improved adaptation measures in the Georgia, Hungary, Italy and Netherlands LL ................................................................................................................................................... 28 D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 1 1. Introduction Climate services (CS) are critical elements to support decisions for adaptation to climate-related risks and climate change impacts. In order to be effective, CS need to be tailored to the knowledge, experience and needs of the users and the contexts in which decisions are being made (Hewitt et al., 2019). I-CISK recognizes that, in order to achieve behavioural change, the active use of climate information for adaptation and mitigation action requires CS users to be at the centre of the design, implementation and evaluation of CS. The goal of Task 2.3 (T2.3), which this Deliverable pertains to, is to map the adaptation decision option space and identify current and potential climate-related adaptation measures that can be informed and supported by existing and new CS. Multiple sources of information are used when making adaptation decisions – not only CS information but also past experience, policies, norms, perceived risks, sense of urgency, knowledge, capacities and barriers, and the expected consequences of implementing adaptation measures. Thus, in T2.3 we aim to explore how local actors combine and use different sources of knowledge in the adaptation decisionmaking process in the different Living Labs (LL) that make up the I-CISK project (Masih, I., Van Cauwenbergh, N., et al., 2022). Using different tools, we aim to gain a better understanding of the information that feeds into the selection and implementation of adaptation actions, including the identification of barriers that obstruct the adoption of certain adaptation measures. This Deliverable identifies the key outputs needed to characterize the adaptation options and its linkages with CS and other information sources and proposes a methodological approach to do this. These outputs include: a) Characterise the present adaptation decision space. This requires exploring how different knowledges (including CS-related knowledge) are combined and used in the adaptation decision-making process. This step includes an overview of local knowledge related to possible adaptation measures (see also work in T2.2). b) Identify (existing and potential) climate risk-management and adaptation measures that (existing and user-informed) CS can inform and support. Identify the barriers (such as lack of technical or financial capacity, existing power distributions, political constraints or legal obligations) and opportunities or enabling conditions that influence the adoption of certain adaptation measures. This includes understanding the interactions among actors and of the feedbacks or linkages between different information sources, adaptation decisions and their impacts (see also work in WP4). c) Foster the identification of additional possible solutions (climate adaptation, risk reduction) by enabling knowledge exchange amongst LL users, between users and project partners, and enabling social learning among the end-users within the LL. This deliverable (D2.3) presents preliminary results on the exploration of the integration of CS information into adaptation decisions. A follow on deliverable, User-centred validation of the integration of climate action information (D2.6), due in month 30 of the project (April 2024), will elaborate on the results of the application of the methodology proposed here in the different LL. D 2.6 will also refer to the KPI included in the I-CISK proposal as an output for T 2.3, which is the number of climate adaptation options and disaster risk reduction (DRR) actions co-identified, with an expectation that at least 3 options and actions per LL will be identified. This report is structured in five sections. After this introduction, section 2 elaborates on the relationship between climate information and adaptation decisions and the need for CS to adapt to local contexts. Section 3 outlines a methodological approach that can be used by the I-CISK LL to gather information on adaptation options and related decision-making processes. Section 4 includes preliminary results from the LL. Section 5 includes conclusions and plans for future work within T 2.3. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 2 2. Integration of climate information into adaptation decisions: T2.3 within the I-CISK Framework for co-creating climate services The development of CS has traditionally emphasised the supply side of climate services, that is, they have often not taken user needs, preferences or capabilities into consideration when generating forecasts and projections (Vincent et al., 2020). As Carr and Ozere (2018) point out, different actors have different vulnerabilities to climate risks, which may depend on various factors such as type of activity, belief, gender, age, education or experience. They may therefore have different CS needs and requirements. These factors need to be investigated and understood so that climate information is “tailored to the contexts of the decisionmaking and perception of the users”, who will combine “information from models with other relevant information to enable the integration of climate risks into their decision-making processes” (Hewitt et al., 2019). I-CISK recognizes that the active use of climate information for climate adaptation and mitigation action requires CS users to be at the centre of the design, creation, implementation and evaluation of CS. Furthermore, I-CISK acknowledges that users construct the climate information they consult to inform adaptation decisions from multiple sources of knowledge, and act within their (socioeconomic, behavioural and institutional) context, which may include incentives as well as barriers to the uptake of that information. These sources of knowledge include present and past experiences, knowledge of the local weather system and of adaptation options and their effectiveness, as well as data from climate and citizen-science (van den Homberg, Rastogi et al, 2023). In order to generate user-centred CS and ensure these are adequate for end user’s needs and context, thus supporting society’s transition toward a more resilient and sustainable future (Hewitt et al., 2019), the I-CISK Framework for co-creating CS (I-CISK, 2022) defines a sequence of iterative steps illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Co-creation of user-centred climate services: building blocks of the process that take place in a LL context (Source: I-CISK, 2022). The process starts by co-exploring user needs and co-identifying relevant local knowledge, perceptions and concerns. This is critical in order to understand the context within which CS will be used and inform how to adapt these accordingly. This work is part of T2.1 Co-exploring climate information and adaptation information needs and obligations and of T2.2 Co-identifying local knowledge on climate & its impacts (see Figure 2) and is reflected in the corresponding deliverables (Moschini & Emerton, 2022; van den Homberg, Rastogi et al. 2023). D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 9  Timelines of decision-making. Timelines of decision-making are a graphic method of representing a sequence of critical moments in a decision-making process that an actor, community or organization considers important. In the case of I-CISK, it is a helpful tool for the early stages of building relationships and engaging in mutual learning about past history and current identity. 3.3. Exploring opportunities for social learning and knowledge exchange 3.3.1. Desired outcomes Throughout the co-creation process of mapping the adaptation option space it is important to actively seek and support opportunities for social learning and knowledge exchange, both among members of the MAP within LL as well as among MAP members in different LL. 3.3.2. Suggested methods Among members of the MAP within LL: Within the LL, knowledge exchange can occur in each of the MAP activities. Special attention should be placed to enabling these learning opportunities. It is important to try to identify and point out potential synergies and learning opportunities. LL leaders should aim to develop activities that highlight the LL as an interconnected social ecosystem where actors and actions within the LL are interrelated. Some potential activities include:  Multi-sectoral dialogues: provide topic-specific opportunities for members of the MAP from different sectors to interact and learn from each other.  Organize small group discussions and plenary sessions in the LL workshops to enhance cross-sectoral exchanges and learning.  LL newsletters where all MAP members can include activities, news and other updates. Among members of the MAP in different LL Among LLs, I-CISK’s the Roadmap for collaboration (Werner et al., 2022) provides a practical framework for collaboration and interrelations among partners and WP. However, an effort can also be made to create spaces for co-learning across LL and among actors in the different LL. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 10 4. Preliminary results from the living labs This section presents preliminary results from some activities conducted by the LL for the exploratory mapping of the adaptation decision space (Phase I described in section 3.1 above). The information was gathered through a questionnaire and an exploratory workshop in the case of the Spanish LL. The questionnaire (see Annex 1) built on the one previously developed to identify climate information needs (Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al. 2022). It has seven sections that address the following issues:  personal information of the respondent;  type of climate risk in the LL;  existing adaptation measures implemented per climate risk;  information used to make adaptation decisions;  relative importance of the different sources of information used to inform the adaptation decision;  additional potential new or enhanced adaptation options and resulting CS needs; and  barriers to adopt and implement new/improved/more effective adaptation measures. The questionnaire was shared with the LL in early September 2022. Between September 30 and December 15 2022, we received responses from all LL with the exception of Lesotho, which at the time of the survey was still under development. In some LL, like Greece, Georgia and Hungary, LL leaders responded to the questionnaire and provided one summary response for the entire LL. In the case of the Netherlands, LL leaders filled out the questionnaire based on the information gathered in meetings with MAP members. The Italian LL shared the questionnaire with MAP members. The Spanish LL did not share the questionnaire with stakeholders but, rather, obtained the information through an exploratory workshop with all members of the MAP held in Pozoblanco, Spain, on October 25, 2022. Table 3. Questionnaire responses received and respondents Living Lab Responses received Information provider Alazani river basin, Georgia One for the LL LL leader Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary One for the LL Emilia-Romagna, Italy IRETI water utility MAP member AREN Electric Power Regional Environmental Agency ARPAE Regional government - RER Crete, Greece One for the LL LL leader Rijnland, the Netherlands Water management LL leader Recreational shipping Agriculture Andalucía-Los Pedroches, Spain Forestry MAP workshop Livestock farming Agricultural In the following sections we summarize the results obtained from the questionnaire in each LL, when necessary complementing it with the information gathered in Deliverables 1.1 on the Characterization of the LL (Masih, I., Van Cauwenbergh, N., et al., 2022) and Deliverable 2.1 on information of climate services needs and gaps (Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al. 2022). The information is organized in the order the questions were presented in the questionnaire. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 11 4.1. Contextual information of the living lab In order to understand the context in which climate-risk adaptation decisions are made, the characteristics of each LL are summarised in Table 4 and in this section (extracted from Masih, I., Van Cauwenbergh, N., et al., 2022 and Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al., 2022). 4.1.1. Alazani river basin, Georgia The Georgia LL focuses on the Alazani river basin, a transboundary river shared between Georgia and Azerbaijan. Due to the complex mountainous topography and diverse climate settings, Georgia is subject to various climate-related hazards. Over the last decades, the number of natural disasters has increased almost threefold. The Alazani river basin in Georgia (with a length of 205 out of 390 km) begins at 2750 m above sea level in the Main Caucasus Range and carves its way through the Alazani plateau to the Mingachevir reservoir, on the border with Azerbaijan. The region is highly dependent on agriculture (38% of the region’s GDP) which in turn relies on water availability for irrigation. The number of hydropower plants in the basin has increased over the last decades, and there are several new planned projects. Water demand is likely to increase in the next decades. The LL focuses on drought and flood risks. The MAP is made up of environmental organizations, agricultural interests, water managers and representatives of research and academia. 4.1.2. Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary The Hungarian LL is situated in the Erzsébetváros district, an inner-city area of Budapest that is densely built. In Budapest, the urban heat island effect is exacerbating the effects of the summer heatwaves in the city. The inner city, where there are fewer green areas, more impervious surfaces and more buildings, can experience a difference of 7°C (2-4°C during the spring and 3-6°C during summer) in surface temperature compared to the green areas surrounding the city. Europe has experienced an increase in heatwave frequency. Hungary is no exception, with a particularly hot summer in 2021 (the 5th hottest in history), where four heatwaves took place. In a climate change context, the severity and length of heatwaves are expected to increase. In urban areas, the urban heat island effect exacerbates the severity of heatwaves, particularly in inner-city areas where green spaces are scarce. The Erzsébetváros district is more exposed to heatwaves as it has a low percentage of green spaces, a high percentage of artificial surfaces and density of buildings, and it lacks natural ventilation. Heatwaves cause health problems, particularly for vulnerable population – e.g. pregnant women, the elderly, children, people living with chronic illness. Air quality and air pollution caused by traffic in the district are further exacerbating heat-exposure related health problems. They also negatively affect some parts of the economy, like tourism. The MAP in the LL is made up of the municipalities of Erzsébetváros and Budapest; the National Public Health Institute (OKI), responsible for monitoring the health consequences of heatwaves and instrumental in the operation of the national heat alarm system; the Department of Meteorology of Eötvös Loránd University; and civil society organizations such as the Clean Air Action Group. 4.1.3. Emilia-Romagna, Italy The Italian LL is located in the Emilia Romagna Region (RER), in the Po River basin district, one of the most economically productive and densely populated areas in Italy. Surface water resources from the Po River and its tributaries are used for agriculture, industry and domestic water supply. Despite its abundant water resources, the area is vulnerable to the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events that contribute to the seasonal variation in water availability. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 12 Table 4. Contextual information for each living lab Living Lab Sectors Involved Main hazards in focus under I-CISK Participating Stakeholders and Relevant End Users Key Motivations Alazani river basin, Georgia Hydropower, agriculture, environmental protection, forestry, tourism, water resources management, environmental protection Drought, Water scarcity Floods Regional governmental bodies, city councils, National Environmental Agency, Department of Environment and Climate Change, NGOs, Telavi State University, Hydropower authorities, farmer cooperatives, citizens, environmental conservation groups. Plan economic activities in the Kakheti region. Support policy and regulations (especially the new Water Code) Plan measurements to mitigate extreme climate hazard events. Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary Tourism, Health, Urban planning Heatwaves, Urban heat islands Municipality of Erzsébetváros district, mayor’s office, Clean air action group (NGO) and other NGOs, residents, local authorities. Increase preparedness and adaptation strategies for heatwaves and drought in relation to urban planning and citizen awareness, due in part to negative impacts on health and tourism. EmiliaRomagna, Italy Agriculture, Industry, Water allocation, Energy, Utilities Environmental management, Drought Water scarcity Irrigation consortia, water utility companies, regional government, regional environmental agencies, regional planners, hydropower producers. Avoid conflicts linked to high water demand during the dry season and revise adaptation strategy. Crete, Greece Tourism, Energy, Transport infrastructure, Water resources management Drought, Water Scarcity, storm surge, floods, heatwaves, wildfires, coastal erosion The Greek National Tourism Organization, the Organization for the Development of Crete S.A , the Regional Development Company of Crete SA , the Municipal Port Fund of Rethymno, Elounda SA Hotels & Resorts and Greek tourism confederation (SETE) Avoid conflicts linked to high water/energy demand during summer. Improve information use to support planning and adaptation for tourism. This also means including intersectoral linkages in a touristic service and adopting informed, operational decisions in the inter-linked sectors to support the touristic product. Increase preparedness and adaptation strategies in the tourist and transportation sectors. Rijnland, the Netherlands Water recreation, Commercial shipping, Tourism, agriculture, Ecosystem management, Water management Drought, Floods Rijnland water board, actors within sector organizations, water tourists, farmers. Influence preparedness and adaptation strategies from sub-seasonal to climate change timescales for organizations and citizens. Andalucía-Los Pedroches, Spain Agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, Natural area management Drought, water scarcity Olive farmers, livestock farmers, farming cooperatives, feed producer, natural park manager R&D, river basin authority, forestry Impacts of changes in precipitation and temperature and water availability on agriculture, livestock farming and natural area management. Source: Adapted from Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al. 2022 D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 13 Human activities contribute to exacerbate the vulnerability to water shortages in the area, threatening those sectors with low adaptive capacity. Increased water demand and lower water availability has resulted in a failure to meet water needs on several occasions. This can cause environmental problems, such as a decrease in the quality of surface water bodies, with critical impact on ecosystems and sensitive species. As part of the "Climate Plans in Emilia-Romagna" initiative, provinces and municipalities in the region have been involved in the construction and implementation of climate adaptation plans, using a common methodology. The RER is aware that climate change necessitates economic choices and behavioural changes in every sector. In 2019, a regional forum on climate change was created, guided by the regional DirectorateGeneral for the Care of the Land and the Environment. The aim is to share transparently its choices, efforts, and above all its results with citizens, businesses, and public administration. The MAP of the RER LL is made up of representatives of the main actors with interests in the water sector: policy makers, business and industry, and agriculture. 4.1.4. Crete, Greece The island of Crete LL, in southern Greece, is characterised by a variable landscape with extensive mountainous regions in the central part, and flat areas close to the shoreline. Crete is among the flagships of the country’s tourism industry, with a thriving tourism sector. Being a large island, it concentrates a significant and varied economic activity and plays an important economic role for the country. As an island, it offers a good opportunity to study a region with well-defined boundaries and autonomous physical and energy resources management. This LL focuses on the tourism sector. Water availability can impede tourism as an economic activity since it is directly associated with the guest experience. Further, energy demand, especially for cooling needs during the hot summer days and nights, is an important consideration for the tourism industry. Flood impacts (coastal and river) are primarily related to transportation infrastructure (mainly ports and roads), which supports the economic industry as well as tourism related infrastructure. Crete is among regions of Greece most vulnerable to climate change, presenting high vulnerability on tourism and transportation sector, followed by health, agriculture and water resources. The MAP comprises national and local authorities responsible for planning (policy makers), authorities responsible for implementing infrastructure projects and tourism-related private businesses and business organizations. 4.1.5. Rijnland, the Netherlands The Rijnland LL is situated on the west coast of the Netherlands, on the North Sea, between the cities of The Hague and Amsterdam. The Rijnland water authority (https://www.rijnland.net/) is the institution responsible for water management in this region. The LL area is mostly flat and below sea level. Extensive dunes along the coast are important for protection against the sea, but also for water supply to the cities through Managed Aquifer Recharge schemes. The surface water system serves both irrigation and drainage, with pumping stations discharging excess water to interconnected canals and out to the North Sea. During dry spells, fresh water is let in from the Rhine River, and supplied to low-lying polders through the same interconnected canals. The aim of the LL is to combine short and long-term climate information in one service, to facilitate the codevelopment of climate adaptation strategies. The Rijnland MAP involves water managers - the Rijnland water board -, research and academia, civil society organizations and representatives from the main water use sectors, mainly tourism and agriculture. 4.1.6. Andalucía-Los Pedroches, Spain The Andalucía-Los Pedroches LL focuses in the comarca (region) of Los Pedroches, a primarily agricultural area located in the north of the province of Córdoba, in the autonomous region of Andalucía, Spain. It also includes the Sierra de Cazorla, Segura and Las Villas Natural Park in the upper Guadalquivir RBD as a complementary D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 14 site for testing the CS developed for forest landscapes. Spain is located within the Mediterranean region, where droughts are a recurring feature. The country experiences significant climatic and rainfall variability, both seasonally—with dry, hot summers and colder, more humid winters—and interannually—with periodic drought cycles of varying intensity and duration. Climate change processes will affect the Mediterranean region. Predicted adverse impacts include more severe droughts, decrease in runoff due to increased temperature and evapotranspiration, and seasonal shift of rainfall patterns. The agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to drought. This is the case for both rainfed and irrigated agriculture, since climate change processes will affect the availability of both blue and green water. However, rainfed agriculture and extensive livestock farming have a limited range of adaptation options available in the short term. The Comarca is a primarily rainfed agricultural region, where different land use systems and landscapes coexist. This diversity of landscapes and land uses, the high ecological and socio-cultural value of the dehesa 4 and the olivar de sierra agroecosystems, their vulnerability to climate change and hydroclimatic risks, make Los Pedroches region a particularly relevant site for the I-CISK project. The Andalucía MAP is composed of water and natural area managers, education community, research and academia, business and industry and civil society organizations, from the agricultural, animal husbandry and natural area management sectors. 4.2. Adaptation options currently implemented to minimize the impacts of climate-risk(s) 4.2.1. Alazani river basin, Georgia LL leader CENN (a regional development organization), responded to the questionnaire on behalf of the MAP. The following drought adaptation decisions currently implemented in the LL were identified: Agricultural sector current adaptation measures  Reduce the losses of irrigation water: legalize the irrigation regime; adhere to irrigation norms, terms and frequency; preferential use of sprinkler and drip irrigation.  Increase efficient use of irrigation water through measures such as rehabilitation and reconstruction of irrigation systems, introduction of new water-saving systems.  Select drought-resistant agricultural crops adapted to local climatic conditions.  Outreach to the agricultural community regarding increased drought risk, vulnerability of agricultural crops to climate change processes, and promotion of adaptation and mitigation measures.  Improve water management properties of the soil cover (moisture capacity, water permeability, water retention) and erosion resistance.  Inform local population (especially farmers) and local government about desertification processes. 4.2.2. Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary In terms of adaptation to heat waves and urban heat island effect risks, the municipality of Erzsébetváros has prepared a Climate Strategy. It aims to expand green infrastructures in the city – green areas, green roofs, green walls, green backyards, shading of buildings (public and private) and public transport spots (with green roofs) –, and the establishment of drinking fountains or other places to drink water during heatwaves (like 4 A dehesa is a multifunctional, agro-silvopastoral system and cultural landscape of southern and central Spain and Portugal. The main tree component is oaks, usually holm and cork. It is primarily used for grazing and raising bulls, Iberian hogs, fed with the oak’s acorns, and other free-ranging livestock (sheep, cattle). D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 15 requiring restaurants to provide water). It also aims to organize a heatwave alarm system and a public education campaign on adaptation strategies. The municipality has already reached some of these goals. It prepared a heatwave alarm strategy, which contains action plans, including opening cool places for citizens during heat waves. The municipality’s webpage contains citizen advisories. They initiated a campaign for restaurants and pubs to provide drinking water during heat waves, but it was not very successful, primarily due to inadequate communication. The information on this initiative was not sufficiently disseminated.For their part, residents in the district followed individual adaptation practices during heatwaves: drink fluids, protect themselves with clothing, avoid certain places affected by the heat, use shading in apartments and travel to green areas/forests/watersheds. The adaptation strategies include measures like shading or providing water for people during heatwaves, but also the improvement of green infrastructure in both public and private spaces. The establishment of new green areas is a challenge, as there is a demand for parking spaces, and in general, there is a shortage of available free space. In both strategies, the municipality has a defining role along with residents. 4.2.3. Emilia-Romagna, Italy The members of the LL MAP that responded to the questionnaire are implementing the adaptation strategies for drought and water scarcity risks summarized in Table 5: Table 5. Drought and scarcity adaptation options in the Emilia Romagna region LL Stakeholder Adaptation measures currently implemented IRETI water utility  Finding leaks in the water supply network, interconnecting aqueducts and improve pumping efficiencies.  River discharge control with flowmeters remotely controlled. AREN Electric Power Schedule maintenance intervention in the plant during summertime, in order to minimize production losses. Regional Environmental Agency ARPAE  The Observatory on climate change and related impacts, active since 2017, works to identify and document climate change processes, elaborate future climate scenarios and identify related impacts, and analyse specific intervention options for the integrated regional plans. The Observatory has been involved in the definition of the RER climate change adaptation strategy by means of climate projections provided by ARPAE.  Provision of observed and forecast meteorological and hydrological data. Regional government - RER  Planning through water demand management.  Decide environmental flow and related exceptions.  Set the rules for restriction to water use in case of shortage.  Set the rules for new withdrawal authorizations (including new permit requests and periodic renewal of existing permits) D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 16 4.2.4. Crete, Greece Table 6 summarizes the adaptation measures implemented in the Greek LL for different climate risks and from the perspective of different members of the MAP (noted in bold). Table 6. Currently used adaptation measures in the Crete (Greece) LL Climate hazard Adaptation measures currently implemented Drought and water scarcity Water manager:  Invest in new reservoirs.  Improve water distribution and water use monitoring.  Improve information on future possible risks (climate change impact studies).  Create an operational service for short-term forecasting of water quantity and quality in one of the reservoirs it manages Luxury resorts manager:  Improve water management  Close the water circle within the facilities (water reuse). Floods Water manager: Establish better communication with Civil Protection Heatwaves Water manager (increased energy consumption for cooling needs):  Install renewable energy sources systems to cover energy needs Port managers:  Deploy bioclimatic canopies and blinds in the wider terrestrial zone of the port, to reduce energy consumption and protect the public against extreme heat Sea surges and sea level rise Port manager: Studies and projects for port protection – new breakwater. 4.2.5. Rijnland, the Netherlands Table 7 summarizes the adaptation measures implemented in the Rijnland LL for drought risk from the perspective of different members of the Rijnland MAP. Table 7. Currently used adaptation measures in the Rijnland LL Stakeholder Adaptation measures currently implemented Water managers Before a drought:  Increase alert level of organization, i.e. scaling up state of preparedness, e.g.: starting meetings of drought response team; planning meeting of regional drought management team; assessing/planning personnel availability in case inspections of embankments for drought damage will be needed.  Increase frequency of drought monitoring reports.  Prepare drought risk management measures, e.g. limit ship lock operation.  Inform water users in the area of upcoming measures. During drought:  Activate alternative freshwater inlet route (Klimaatbestendige wateraanvoer or KWA, a small-scale water supply, recently upgraded to climate-robust water supply).  Monitor to decide on need for further drought event measures, continue present measures, or to stop measures (end of drought). D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 17  Organize think tank meetings with water user groups to inform and discuss measures, why measures are needed, impacts and predictions on how much longer the drought and measures will last. Climate change intensified / more frequent drought: Increased capacity of alternative route for freshwater supply. Engaging with stakeholders to explore if current sensitivity of their activities to summer droughts can be reduced in the future. Details to be confirmed by Water Board MAP members Recreational shipping Before a drought: the 2018 drought is still ongoing (in March 2023). In 2022, in response to alerts that the drought may further intensify and water management measures may further restrict recreational shipping, re-routing or change of holiday plans may have been done. During drought: reactive, when ship-locks are closed/restricted for recreational shipping, boat owners change their timing and/or route/location for planned water holidays. Events by boating-clubs may be cancelled/postponed. Many boat owners were stuck and/or delayed in a boat-traffic jam before the ship-locks. Agriculture During drought: intensive irrigation campaign and, sometimes, close gates to hold water/prevent saline water from reaching the fields. 4.2.6. Andalucía-Los Pedroches, Spain In the Andalucía-Los Pedroches LL, MAP members identified adaptation measures for the different sectors and drought-related impacts. Participants in the workshop worked individually to fill out information-gathering sheets designed by LL leaders (see Annex 2). The information was then discussed and validated in a plenary session. The results are summarised in Table 8. Below we also include some pictures of the workshop. Figure 4: Individual work (A and B) for identification of adaptation measures, barriers and climate service needs, and plenary session (C, D and E). A B D E C D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 18 Table 8. Currently used adaptation measures in the Andalucía LL Stakeholder Primary drought and climate change impacts Adaptation measures currently implemented Livestock farmers  Drop in groundwater levels  Increased temperatures and duration of heatwaves  Lower pasture productivity (acorns and grasses)  Holm oak mortality  Need for complementary corn and other fodder  New wells or deepening of existing wells  Install showers for milk cattle (cooling)  Buy feed to supplement rangeland cattle feed  Manage supplementary livestock feed  Rotational grazing  Redistributing the stocking rate (sell cows and buy sheep)  Transhumance5  Advance sale of hogs  Adapt stocking rate  Education and outreach to ranchers on adaptation options Agriculture and olive growers  Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events  Phenological changes in the flowering periods of olive trees  Reduction in the frequency and amount of rainfall and change in soil moisture  Decreased production  Increase organic content of the vegetation cover (ecological agriculture)  Change tillage practices (grass) for soil conservation  Grazing management  Proper management of herbaceous cover Forestry and natural areas management  Changes in seasons and snow periods  Phenological changes  Changes in the distribution and abundance of forest species  Increased tree mortality  Reduction of surface flows  Increased fire risk period  Reduced production of forest resources  Appropriate silvicultural treatments (pruning, thinning)  Control of tree density/reduce harvesting intensity  Removal of decaying trees and dry fuel  Monitor populations of threatened plant and animal species  Monitor and support natural/artificial regeneration  Control of diseases in riparian trees and oaks  Pasture improvement (native species)  Optimize the use of water resources  Require environmental impact report on new proposed wells 4.3. Information used to make adaptation decisions In order to better understand the existing decision-making space, respondents were asked to identify the information they relied on when making adaptation decisions. The information is summarized in Table 9 below for all LL. 5 Seasonal movement of livestock between summer and winter pastures. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 25 Living Lab Alazani river basin, Georgia Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary Emilia-Romagna, Italy Crete, Greece AREN ARPAE RER IRETI Spatial resolution Living lab territory Identified agriculture lands Mapping urban micro heat island spots and buildings Single hydrometric station (with publicly available historical discharge measurements) Single hydrometric station Single hydrometric station, replicable to other stations at catchment closures Single hydrometric station and other points of interest From regional level to basin level and up to local, as a port Time scale / horizon Sub seasonal, seasonal If no change in the urban setting, (green areas/artificial surface) heat emission data can be used for forecasting the subsequent year. Up to 15 days, also subseasonal prediction up to 4/6 weeks would be of interest Up to 15 days Up to 15 days, mid and long term climate projections Up to 15 days Weekly, Sub seasonal, seasonal, mid-long term Temporal resolution Monthly data corrected based on local data to fill the gaps Twice a day during heat waves Daily/weekly Daily Daily, weekly, midlong term Daily Daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal Triggers or thresholds Daily, weekly information Heat alarms are issued when in three consecutive the daily average temperature is more than 25 °C. - - - - - Lead times required seasonal and subseasonal Possibly real time data, but it depends on who will operate the data, we can update it time to time. up to 15 days, also up to 4/6 weeks would be of interest up to 15 days Up to 15 days for water management, climate projections for planning Up to 15 days Weekly, Sub seasonal, seasonal, mid-long term Accuracy / uncertainty of the CS For “Streamflow prediction for hydro power”: monthly average flow. For “flooding prediction system for DRR” Daily extreme precipitation Not relevant if data allow Statistic forks, otherwise error metrics boxplot with statistical distribution of forecast Error metrics, not only average, but specific for flow regimes, eventually statistic forks if feasible Do not know. Comparison between expected and real could be of interest. Depending on the service. Uncertainty provision of some form is required Table 12. Characterization of required climate services for the Alazani, Budapest, Emilia Romagna and Crete living labs D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 26 Living Lab Rijnland, Netherlands Agriculture Water management Recreational shipping Spatial resolution local for Rijnland (40 by 30 km whole area or higher resolution) (To be discussed with MAP) Local for Rijnland at drainage unit (‘peilgebied’) and area average, in combination with national NL: drought outlook for the whole of the Netherlands with expected impact on water allocation measures according to pre-fixed national drought event management plan with list in order of priority of water usage. , and Rhine catchment in particular streamflow at location of Rhine entering the NL local for Rijnland (point and line/feature information), in combination with national NL: restrictions and expected delays on ship locks and recreational shipping routes Time scale / horizon Up to 15 days, seasonal, and climate change have been mentioned. Sub seasonal not yet discussed, and specifics of the time horizons in each class also not yet 1) Sub seasonal forecasts. In particular, sub seasonal has been mentioned as useful for better planning of personnel, cross-institutional decision making in anticipation of and during drought events, and or earlier and better communication to and with water users in the area, e.g. from water tourism and agricultural sector. 2) Decadal and climate change projections local to Rijnland and for NL as a whole, and for Europe concerning the Rhine catchment and expected impact on low streamflow entering NL. Preferred horizons of projections have not been discussed. To be specified by the Water Board Up to 15 days has been mentioned. Sub seasonal to seasonal not yet discussed Temporal resolution Not explicitly discussed, but from the measured/ operation during drought discussed: daily Daily Not explicitly discussed, but from the discussion I expect at least at daily, perhaps hourly temporal resolution Triggers or thresholds For salinity surface water, farmers have threshold in mind, for weather variables not sure. Details have not been discussed yet Coincidence of a potential precipitation deficit over a threshold with a Rhine discharge below a threshold defines drought for the Rijnland water board. Thresholds per month are defined. Duration thresholds are not pre-fixed. Duration and subsequent need for measures to be further detailed by the water board. The drought thresholds serve as alert level after which based on additional measurements, e.g. salinity, and additional information, e.g. experience with effectiveness of measures, in committee meetings decisions are taken on a weekly basis on which measures to take, continue, and stop. Drought event management by the Rijnland water board follows detailed protocols and guidelines, in-line with national regulations Triggers or thresholds have not been discussed yet. Rather it appears that users would like to know when, where, and how long recreational shipping restrictions will take place in combination with expected delays (like in a traffic-app) and then decide themselves on whether and how they would adjust their planning Lead times required 1-Day up to 1-year lead time for irrigation optimisation and next season seeds ordering 5-25 Year climate change impact on droughts, for crop-choice and related infrastructural investment strategy Lead times from two weeks up to 1 month for operational management of the dry season including drought event management if needed (e.g. planning of staff's availability for embankment inspections, preparing request for alternative water supply route in regional drought event management committee). 10-25 Year climate change impact on droughts, for investment strategy in salinity management technologies, freshwater storage, and increasing capacity of alternative fresh water supply routes 1-Day up to 3 months lead time for planning and adjusting of ongoing season's sailing events and holidays' timing, destinations and routes. 5-25 Year climate change impact on droughts, for recreational shipping clubs and marinas' investment planning for maintenance, redesign, and replacement of harbors, and membership policy and targeting e.g. for ship types more flexible in taking alternative navigation routes during droughts D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 27 Accuracy / uncertainty of the CS Not yet discussed The water board would like to have information on the accuracy and reliability of meteorological and hydrological sub seasonal drought predictions, both in research-focussed metrics as well as in use-case metrics, e.g. confusion matrix on ability to predict past drought events (hits, false alarms, missed events, and correct rejections). With respect to climate change information any insight that can be given on variability of impacts on drought between different scenarios and climate models and on how well the climate models replicate the current climate would be valuable Not yet discussed Table 13. Characterization of required climate services for the Rijnland living lab Climate service Temporal scale Spatial scale Variables Variable components Temporal aggregation Climate predictions 3, 6, 12 months 250m - 1 km Temperature Max, min, average, number of days over a threshold Monthly, maybe bi-weekly Precipitation Temporal distribution Accumulated precipitation Monthly, seasonal, annual Beginning and end of seasons Definition of seasons in terms of solar radiation, Temperature, Precipitation and phenological data Seasonal characteristics for each use (wildlife reproduction cycles, pasture cycles, etc.) Downscaled climate change projections (10-30 years) 10-30 years (the latter particularly relevant for protected areas) 1 km Temperature Max, min, average, number of days over a threshold Seasonal / annual Precipitation Temporal distribution Accumulated precipitation Seasonal / annual Historic climatic data 50 - 100 years 25 years – collective memory Prototype for the region of Pedroches Precipitation Temperature Hydrologic variables Historical series for T / P, hydrology, dendrology, combining with local actors’ memories (perception of changes) Depending on available data Predicted impact of climate on plant productivity 20-30 years 1 km Based on indicators that correlate T and P with ideal agronomic conditions for pasture (extensive livestock and wildlife) and olive production Historical series for T / P / solar radiation, combined with historical data of plant productivity Agronomically relevant periods 6-12-24 months 1 km Minimum temperature (pests), accumulated solar radiation (start and end of season) Hydrological characterization and climate change impacts 12 months 10-30 years Surface and groundwater bodies Temperature, precipitation, Surface flows, recharge, water quality (specially Nitrates) Water storage, water recharge, water flows Hydrologically relevant time spans Table 14. Characterization of required climate services for the Andalucía living lab D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 28 4.5. What are the barriers to adopt and implement new, improved or more effective adaptation measures? A majority of respondents identified lack of information as the main barrier for improved adaptation decisions, followed by institutional or administrative barriers, lack of resources and lack of technological expertise. Below is a summary of the responses provided by each LL. Table 15. Barriers to adopt and implement improved adaptation measures in the Georgia, Hungary, Italy and Netherlands LL Living lab Barriers to adopt and implement improved adaptation measures Alazani river basin, Georgia Financial Lack of information and knowledge Limited data availability Limited qualification of local experts Erzsébetváros, Budapest, Hungary Financial and political (conflict between parking spaces and green infrastructure). Lack of information – availability of information on micro heat island Emilia-Romagna, Italy Rating curves are only available for some river sections and there is significant uncertainty with relation to the higher values of the rating curves . There is no available estimate of discharge, even when quite accurate rainfall predictions are available. Institutional barrier: Lack of coordination of main stakeholders for shared decisionmaking in case of drought. Information barrier: the regional model does not provide forecasts for the Apennine upper catchments. Crete, Greece Lack of trust on climate change projections and climatic information. Lack of awareness on need to adapt. Lack of maturity on climate adaptation and therefore lack of willingness to take action. Financial limitations. Lack of in-house technical skills. Rijnland, the Netherlands Agricultural sector  Economic and market barriers – decisions next season’s crops will determine the chemicals and fertilizers needed  Regulations, e.g. on irrigation-stops and holding surface water near field/blocking inlet of surface water Water managers  Insufficient lead-time and lack of information on the reliability of drought forecasts.  Lack of awareness and confidence in long-term climate change impact projections (50 years) rather than 5 or 10 years, may be a limiting factor for policy and investment planning Recreational shipping: Lack of awareness and confidence in long-term climate change impact projections (50 years) rather than 5 or 10 years, may be a limiting factor for policy and investment and business strategy measures Below are the main barriers that hinder the implementation of improved adaptation measures in each sector identified by participants in the Andalucía-Los Pedroches LL workshop. In parenthesis, we include the number of participants that highlighted each barrier in relation to each sector. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 29 Livestock farmers  Economic or financial limitations (18)  Administrative or institutional barriers (15)  Lack of information (hydrological, climatic, relation between climate and pasture production) (7)  The common agricultural policy (3)  Technical (lack of technical capacity, lack of flexibility of production systems) (3) Agriculture sector  Lack of information (5)  Technical (lack of technical capacity or lack of tools) (4)  Economic or financial limitations (1)  Structural adaptive limitations (1)  Administrative or institutional (for instance lack of protection from nitrate pollution) (1) Forestry sector  Economic or financial limitations (lack of incentives for adaptation) (17)  Lack of information (e.g. on status of water resources, on local climate variables, of best adaptation options) (15)  Administrative or institutional barriers (e.g. slow administrative process; lack of effective control of water uses) (12)  Technical limitations (lack of adequate species, lack of technical skills) (3)  The common agricultural policy (2)  Political (2)  Uncertainty (2) 4.6. Enablers that leverage the implementation of new, improved or more effective adaptation measures The questionnaire did not investigate this aspect of the decision making process that will be included in the collaborative work within the MAP in the LL in the months to come. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 30 5. Conclusions and future work This Deliverable proposes a methodological approach to explore the relationship between different sources of information and climate adaptation decision-making processes, the resulting climate information needs, and existing limitations and enablers that hinder or leverage the implementation of improved adaptation decisions in the context of the I-CISK project. It also presents preliminary results of the current climate adaptation decision-making space in the different LL that make up the I-CISK project. Information from the LL was gathered through a questionnaire that was distributed among LL leaders in September of 2022. LL used a variety of tools and techniques to gather the requested information – sharing the questionnaire with members of the LL, interviews, meetings with stakeholders, focus groups and workshops. The Deliverable does not include information from the Lesotho LL, which was in the development stage in autumn 2022. Preliminary results show that actors in the different LL implement a wide range of climate-risk adaptation measures, but easily identify new and improved adaptation options that they could implement with improved CS as well as with the elimination of some clearly identified barriers. While all users have access to climate information, and use publicly available daily meteorological information, preliminary results show that past experience is the primary source of information when making adaptation decisions. In order to make better use of this experience, actors in some LL identify the need to access historic climate information in their region to contrast with personal memories from past climate extremes. Financial considerations are also a determining factor, often considered a primary limitation in the implementation of adaptation measures. The institutional and regulatory framework – and the common agricultural policy in the case of stakeholders from the agricultural sector – is considered a major barrier to successful adaptation decisions. Preliminary results also would seem to indicate that meteorological and hydrological information does not currently prominently feature in decision-making processes. However, these results are preliminary and have not been sufficiently analysed On the other hand, improved climate information is also identified as key input to improved adaptation decisions – downscaled climate projections offered with sufficient lead times and in a seasonal and sub seasonal (1-3-6 and 12 months) time scale. In the first 12 months of the project, all LL have advanced in the characterization of the necessary climate services, providing some preliminary indications on the spatial resolution, time scale, temporal resolution, triggers or thresholds and tolerance to uncertainty. The role different sources of information play in the decision-making process, and a more clear understanding of what these sources of information are – for instance clearly identifying what is understood as local knowledge, past experience or traditional knowledge – will need to be further investigated in the next months. It will also be necessary to develop a more nuanced understanding of barriers and levers for enhanced decision-making and to improve the characterization of the enhanced decision making space. Ongoing interactions with the LL in the following months will make it possible to gather this additional information. The questionnaire prepared in to inform this deliverable was useful to obtain preliminary information. However, additional tools are needed to generate more nuanced information from the cocreation process in the different LL. Some options include individual follow up meetings with LL leaders to present the methodological approach developed in D 2.3 and/or an online workshop with LL leaders to gather this information and devise other information gathering methods to collaboratively contribute to D2.6. These will need to be selected and planned in coordination with project coordinators and WP leaders. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 31 References Akerkar et al, 2020, Early Warning for Early Action: Toward More Behaviorally Informed Early Warning Systems. USAID, W-DC. Beier, P., Hansen, L., Helbrecht, L., & Behar, D. (2016). A How‐to Guide for Coproduction of Actionable Science. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.111/concl.12300 Brouwer, H. and Woodhill, J., with Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K. and van Vugt, S. 2016. The MSP Guide, How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research, WCDI, and Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780446691 CARE International. 2017. Practical guide to PSP: Participatory Scenario Planning using seasonal forecasts. Used with permission. Available at: https://careclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Practicalguide-to-PSP-web.pdf . Last accessed: March 16, 2023 Carr, E. R., & Onzere, S. N. (2018). Really effective (for 15% of the men): Lessons in understanding and addressing user needs in climate services from Mali. Climate Risk Management, 22, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.002 Chambers, R. 2004. Participatory Workshops. A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. Earthscan. Available at: https://evalparticipativa.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/34.-participatory-workshops.pdf . Last accessed: March 16, 2023. JISK. 2014. Planning a participatory workshop. Bringing people together to seek their opinions, extract knowledge and to solve problems in a collaborative and creative environment. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/planning-a-participatory-workshop Last accessed: March 16, 2023. I-CISK. 2022. A prototype framework on co-creating end-user centred climate services, v 1.0, February 2022. I-CISK Milestone MS10. Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources Last accessed: March 16, 2023. Golding, 2019, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMNH54A.01G/abstract Hewitt, C. D., Guglielmo, F., Joussaume, S., Bessembinder, J., Christel, I., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Djurdjevic, V., Garrett, N., Kjellström, E., Krzic, A., Costa, M. M., & St. Clair, A. L. 2021. Recommendations for Future Research Priorities for Climate Modeling and Climate Services, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 102(3): E578-E588. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0103.1 Hirons, L., Thompson, E., Dione, C., Indasi, V. S., Kilavi, M., Nkiaka, E., Talib, J., Visman, E., Adefisan, E. A., de Andrade, F., Ashong, J., Mwesigwa, J. B., Boult, V. L., Diédhiou, T., Konte, O., Gudoshava, M., Kiptum, C., Amoah, R. K., Lamptey, B., … Woolnough, S. (2021). Using co-production to improve the appropriate use of sub-seasonal forecasts in Africa. Climate Services, 23 (September), 100246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.1 Krueger, R.A. and M.A. Casey. 2015. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research 5th Edition. SAGE publications. Masih, I., Van Cauwenbergh, N., et al., 2022. Characterization of the I-CISK Living Labs, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources Last accessed: March 16, 2023. Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al. 2022: Preliminary Report: Information on Climate Service Needs and Gaps, ICISK Deliverable 2.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 32 Palomo, I., B. Martín-López, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society 16(1): 23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art23/ van den Homberg, M., Rastogi, S. et al. 2023 Preliminary report on best practices with respect to the incorporation of end-user knowledge and experience in the co-design of CS, I-CISK Deliverable 2.2, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources Last accessed: March 16, 2023. Vergragt, P.J., Quist, J. 2011. Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010 Vincent, K., S. Carter, A. Steynor, E. Visman and Lund Wågsæther, K. 2020. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nature Climate Change, 10(10): 877–878. Werner, M., Masih, I., Rastogi, S. and Bb Kudzai. 2022. Roadmap for the collaboration between the Living Labs (WP1) and Work Packages 2‐6. I-CISK Deliverable 1.2, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 33 Annex 1. Living Lab Stakeholder / Participant Questionnaire: Information on climate actions to be supported by climate services Task 2.3 Living Lab Stakeholder / Participant Questionnaire: Information on climate actions to be supported by climate services July 2022 Clarification for Living lab leaders: This questionnaire has been prepared so that it can be translated and shared with stakeholders in the different Living Labs. Before doing so, LL leaders need to make some adjustements following the indications marked in red in the document. If LL leaders already have the information requested in this questionnaire through previous interactions with stakeholders, they can fill it out themselves. D2.3 - Preliminary report on user-centered validation of the integration of climate action information 34 Context Definitions Climate Services: The transformation of climate-related data – together with other relevant information – into customised products such as projections, forecasts, information, trends, economic analysis, assessments (including technology assessment), counselling on best practises, development and evaluation of solutions and any other service in relation to climate that may be of use for society at large. Adaptation: Adapting to climate change means taking action to prepare for and adjust to both the current effects of climate change and the predicted impacts in the future. Climate risk management: Climate risk management aims to manage climate change impacts along the entire risk continuum, from short-term extreme weather events to long-term gradual changes. Goals of this questionnaire Effective climate services support decision-making on targeted measures to manage climate risks. The goal of this questionnaire is to map the experience of end-users and co-identify relevant climate risk management measures that can be informed by the climate service. We aim to:  Obtain an overview of local knowledge related to the possible measures that are available to manage climate risks.  Explore how different sources of information – past experiences, policies, norms, perceived risks, sense of urgency, knowledge, capacity, barriers, expected consequences of implementing adaptation measures, climate service information – are combined and used when making adaptation decisions.  Identify barriers – such as capacity, existing power distributions or legal-political obligations – that obstruct the consideration of certain adaptation measures,  Expose the link between different information sources, adaptation decisions and their impacts. Participation in the questionnaire / interview is voluntary, and it is not a requirement to answer all questions. Data / responses will be stored securely and will not be shared beyond the project consortium, and all responses and personal data will be anonymised in the report. Participants will be asked to confirm their consent for use of their responses for the outlined purpose(s) using the consent form on the following page. If you have any questions about this interview/questionnaire, please contact your LL lead who shared these questions with you and/or Nuria Hernández-Mora (the contact person at UCM who will be collecting the responses): [email protected] Please send any completed questionnaires to [email protected] and [email protected] Thank you for your collaboration! 41 Annex 2. Worksheets used in the Andalucía Living Lab multiactor platform workshop to identify adaptation options and climate service needs 42 43 Colophon: This report has been prepared by the H2020 Research Project “Innovating Climate services through Integrating Scientific and local Knowledge (I-CISK)”. This research project is a part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme call, “Building a low-carbon, climate resilient future: Research and innovation in support of the European Green Deal (H2020-LC-GD-2020)”, and has been developed in response to the call topic “Developing end-user products and services for all stakeholders and citizens supporting climate adaptation and mitigation (LC-GD-9-2-2020)”. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101037293. This four-year project started November 1st 2021 and is coordinated by IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. For additional information, please contact: Micha Werner ([email protected]) or visit the project website at www.icisk.eu