Risk reduction, uncertainty and climate services: Bridging the usability gap through Living Labs

16:15 Tuesday 28 May

OC089

Room S8

 

Lisa Van Well (Sweden) 1; Josefin Andersson (Sweden) 2; Elin Ljunggren (Sweden) 3; Miriam S. Zetterlund (Sweden) 1

1 - Swedish Geotechnical Institute; 2 - Arvika Teknik AB; 3 - Värmland County Administrative Board

Objectives:

Robust climate models and decision-making tools for disaster risk reduction are available to municipalities and regions all over Europe, but findings from research indicate that these are being under-utilized in climate adaptation work. The objective of the EVOKED project, as part of ERA4CS, initiated by JPI Climate, is to identify and bridge the usability gap, caused by missing feedback from the users to the producers of climate services.

To address the question ‘How can knowledge translators help to enhance the value of climate data on risk and uncertainty through a Living Lab process?’ we discuss the first step of the EVOKED Living Lab co-created between Arvika municipality, the Värmland County Administrative Board (VCAB) and researchers from the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) in Sweden. The climate services produced in this Living Lab are to help Arvika municipality and VCAB communicate the risks and uncertainties associated with urban flooding and measures for improving water quality within their climate adaptation strategies and disaster risk reduction work.

Methods:

Existing climate services rarely consider the socio-economic and territorial governance contexts where the service will be employed. Drawing on theories of innovation processes, design approaches and territorial governance analysis, the first co-design phase of the Living Lab is tailored to understanding the end-user needs and real-life technical, environmental, economic, social and governance contexts. Rather than defining the problems and methods a priori, the EVOKED Living Lab approach involves knowledge providers, knowledge translators and users in the conceptualization of the Living Lab and its principles from the very beginning of the process.

Results:

The preliminary results of the co-design processes, whereby the knowledge users and translators have analyzed the interests and influence of the relevant stakeholders, the needs and visions of the community for climate services and the specific territorial governance context of the Living Lab are presented both from the knowledge translator perspective (SGI) and the knowledge user perspectives (Arvika municipality and VCAB).

Conclusions:

In a presentation, we jointly discuss our conclusions:

  • Challenges and opportunities so far in operationalizing the Living Lab process from the knowledge translator and knowledge producer perspectives
  • How the Living Lab process and the analysis of the territorial governance context has helped to produce climate services to reduce the risk and uncertainty in climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction work
  • Problematizing the added-value of using Living Labs to produce climate services