A human-centred approach to climate solutions
Climate services provide tailored climate-related information to help users make decisions, whether adapting to a changing climate or managing climate extremes such as droughts, heatwaves or cold spells. Though targeted at helping people at local level adapt, in practice these services are often science-driven rather than truly user-centred. Over recent decades, improved projections and seasonal forecasting have significantly increased the potential of climate services. Yet, as Lisa Goddard(opens in new window) observed, “Climate services require more than climate science.” The EU-funded I-CISK(opens in new window) project addressed this gap between scientific focus of climate services and their usability. It focused on overcoming barriers that limit their uptake, such as a lack of understanding of end-user needs, their decision-making processes and how they combine local knowledge with scientific insight. “A key premise of I-CISK was recognising the value of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge – integrating these perspectives is essential to making climate services more human-centred and effective,” notes project coordinator Micha Werner. The coordinator describes three key dimensions for the uptake of climate services: salience, credibility and legitimacy. Salience means the service addresses a real need and is relevant to users. Credibility ensures the information provided is reliable. Legitimacy ties it all together through an inclusive process that values users’ voices and fosters trust.
Living labs bringing climate services to life
What set I-CISK apart from other initiatives was that all research was grounded in seven living labs across Europe, including Georgia, as well as Lesotho, bringing together actors from various sectors to co-create climate services tailored to their specific contexts. “Each living lab was unique, with its own challenges and ways of working, but all followed a structured roadmap to ensure efficient collaboration and avoid overburdening stakeholders, whose involvement was voluntary,” outlines Werner. This co-creation process was more than just developing services. “It involved understanding how people make decisions, what choices they believe they have and what matters most to them,” adds Werner. While project members primarily focused on providing climate information for seasonal timescales (1-6 months), they also identified other time frames and climate hazards that were important to them, so these were also included in the services. The living labs served as research hubs, exploring the role of local knowledge and the development of credible climate information. The research also looked at possible unintended consequences of using climate services, such as whether they might lead to poor adaptation choices or unsustainable strategies.
Co-creation services in practice
A key output was a climate services platform built on open-source, standardised software and cloud-based technologies. This platform provides a common foundation for the diverse co-created services, ensuring they were easy to use and could work together seamlessly. It also connected with data sources such Copernicus for better integration. An innovative feature was an AI-driven climate service composer(opens in new window), allowing non-experts to interactively design basic climate services using Agentic AI. “The platform offers lessons on how co-creation works in practice. Understanding what works and what does not is crucial for successful co-creation,” highlights Werner.
Meaningful climate solutions
Climate services designed with people at the core combine scientific insight with local knowledge and user input to create practical, customised solutions. “We explored what local knowledge means in climate services, who holds it and how it informs decisions. Broadening this understanding is important for integrating local knowledge into climate services and improving their relevance, credibility and legitimacy,” concludes Werner.
