Editorial: High-Quality Knowledge for Climate Adaptation: Revisiting Criteria of Credibility, Legitimacy, Salience, and Usability

Bremer, Scott; Wardekker, Arjan; Pacchetti, Marina Baldissera; Sluijs, Jeroen van der

doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.905786

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our methodological guidelines add to the body of research that seeks to evaluate research impact and co-produced climate services, and shed light upon the need to rethink evaluation practices. Most previous research has focused on suggesting criteria for evaluating co-produced climate services and adaptation (Wall et al, 2017;Visman et al, 2022) as well as their quality (Bremer et al, 2022). Methodological choices remain understudied.…”

Section: Research Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Englund

André²,

Swartling³

et al. 2022

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As climate change impacts unfold across the globe, growing attention is paid toward producing climate services that support adaptation decision-making. Academia, funding agencies, and decision-makers generally agree that stakeholder engagement in co-producing knowledge is key to ensure effective decision support. However, co-production processes remain challenging to evaluate, given their many intangible effects, long time horizons, and inherent complexity. Moreover, how such evaluation should look like is understudied. In this paper, we therefore propose four methodological guidelines designed to evaluate co-produced climate services: (i) engaging in adaptive learning by applying developmental evaluation practices, (ii) building and refining a theory of change, (iii) involving stakeholders using participatory evaluation methods, and (iv) combining different data collection methods that incorporate visual products. These methodological guidelines offset previously identified evaluation challenges and shortcomings, and can be used to help stakeholders rethink research impact evaluation through their complementary properties to identify complex change pathways, external factors, intangible effects, and unexpected outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Research Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%