Co-producing climate change adaptation indicators with small Norwegian municipalities

Co-producing climate change adaptation indicators with small Norwegian municipalities | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Co-producing climate change adaptation indicators with small Norwegian municipalities Lilo Henke, Eli Sandberg, Katrin Knoth, Ingjerd Risnes Davøen, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Co-production of knowledge (CPK) enables wider inclusion of stakeholders in shaping research, contributing knowledge, and creating solutions. This study evaluates a co-production of knowledge process with ten small to medium-sized Norwegian municipalities aimed at developing a relevant and usable set of climate change adaptation indicators tailored to diverse municipal contexts. The effectiveness of the implemented CPK approach is assessed through a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics that evaluate both the process itself and the degree to which the anticipated outcomes were realized. Significant challenges emerged around municipal resource allocation, sustaining engagement, and effective communication—especially in digital formats. Nonetheless, internal collaboration improved in many municipalities, and the project helped raise awareness and understanding of CCA. Recommendations for successful CPK with small local authorities include anchoring the CPK in the participating organisations, ensuring continuity, tailoring activities to resource constraints, fostering cross-participant mentorship, and supporting long-term network building. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change adaptation Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change policy Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Climate change and adaptation are complex issues that require transdisciplinary collaboration 1 . However, adaptation responsibilities and responses are often fragmented across public, private and civil society actors. A recent global assessment found that local authorities are typically tasked with planning adaptation measures, while implementation is overwhelmingly performed by households and individuals, and monitoring and evaluation are mostly conducted by academic actors 2 . Additionally, there is limited evidence of multi-actor collaboration. The direct impacts of climate change are generally local, and municipalities globally are increasingly taking responsibility for climate change adaptation (CCA), either through legislation or voluntarily, leading to competition for municipal resources and attention 3 , 4 . Multiple factors, including lack of resources and competence, conflicting priorities, and local risk perceptions, can make it difficult for local governments to cooperate across departments or sectors and mainstream CCA 3 , 5 , 6 . A well-established approach for transdisciplinary collaboration in CCA is co-production of knowledge (CPK) 7 . This approach can be seen as an iterative and flexible process between researchers and societal stakeholder groups with the goal of generating usable knowledge that is understandable and relevant for practitioners in solving a specific problem and meeting needs that have been collaboratively identified and formulated 1 , 8 , 9 . This study aims to evaluate the application of CPK in a research project on CCA indicators in Norwegian municipalities. The results provide insights into the conditions that facilitate successful CPK approaches with small and medium-sized municipalities in the context of CCA. The remainder of this introduction first describes the CCA policy landscape in Norway before reviewing the literature on CPK and methods for evaluating its effectiveness. We then present the conceptual framework, involved stakeholders, and CPK activities informing this study. Norway has a strongly decentralised governance model in which municipalities are tasked with providing a large share of public services. Of the 357 Norwegian municipalities, about half are classified as small (less than 5000 residents) and a large majority have low centrality. There is no nationally calculated rurality index for Norway, but the Norwegian Bureau of Statistics (SSB) produces a six-class municipal centrality index based on travel times to workplaces and critical services10. The percentages reported here are based on the 2023–2024 classification ( https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/artikler/sentralitetsindeksen ). The national CCA policy framework states that “municipal authorities play a key role in tackling the increasingly widespread consequences of climate change and developing climate-resilient communities within their geographical areas” 11 . Legislation requires municipalities to do comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessments (RVA), including climate risk, as part of their civil protection duty. However, an investigation by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway in 2022 on adaptation work by national and local authorities concluded that many municipalities do not include long-term future climate change consequences in their RVA; problem areas uncovered in the RVA are not sufficiently integrated in the municipal planning work; and few municipalities revise existing plans when new risks are uncovered 12 . Delegating CCA responsibility to so many, mostly small, authorities not only risks a fragmented response but also poses challenges for individual municipalities. These include limited access to human, financial, and knowledge resources, varying levels of political will and difficulties in anchoring and integrating CCA into existing municipal work 13 , 14 . While attention to CCA is increasing among Norwegian decision-makers 15 , there is a clear need for support in initiating municipal CCA activities and monitoring progress in order to guide further work. The process of initiating, implementing and monitoring CCA can be seen as an iterative cycle. Most adaptation frameworks include variations of the following steps: assessing the current status; preparing adaptation goals and strategies; identifying risks and vulnerabilities; selecting and implementing adaptation measures; monitoring and reporting progress; and evaluating the process 16 – 19 . The steps of monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE) are commonly executed using indicators that are calculated at regular intervals, enabling systematic progress assessments 20 , 21 . In Norway, responsibility for reporting on CCA under the Framework Convention on Climate Change lies with the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, but no national MRE system has been established as yet 22 . Progress on the national goal ‘Society and ecosystems must be prepared for and adapted to climate change’ is measured based on a single indicator, which relies on qualitative self-reporting from relevant agencies and only measures adaptation effort and not outcomes 23 . The status and development of the goal thus cannot be calculated. Other efforts to track progress on CCA include the Norwegian Climate Monitor run by the Research Centre on Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation, which regularly conducts surveys at public, private, and household levels 24 . The centre recently presented a climate risk monitoring framework based on 17 indicators that measure municipal-level climate hazard, vulnerability, exposure, and response 25 . They found that the least central municipalities tend to score worst on climate risk vulnerability, impact, and adaptation 26 . Although these initiatives, to some extent, enable sectoral, regional, or national monitoring of CCA, their utility for practitioners, such as local governments, in evaluating efforts and steering further action is limited. To fill this gap, a series of CPK processes involving mostly small (population < 5,000) and medium-sized (population 5,000–20,000) municipalities were implemented to generate an indicator framework for measuring and evaluating municipal CCA efforts. Through the Centre for Research-based Innovation Klima 2050 ( www.klima2050.no/ ), an initial CCA indicator set for Norwegian municipalities was developed in 2021 27 . The indicators were developed through a CPK process involving employees from four municipalities in Trøndelag County, the Trøndelag County Authority and the County Governor of Trøndelag. Building on recommendations in the adaptation literature 20 , 28 , 29 , the indicator set contains three indicator categories: process indicators that track progress in adaptation policy processes and actions; output indicators that measure implemented or realised adaptation policies or actions; and outcome indicators that measure the effect and impact of the implemented measures. The scope of the indicators was limited to anchoring of CCA in the organisation and internal processes, and physical impacts on buildings and infrastructure. A follow-up project (the Vestland project ) employing CPK was set up to test and further develop the indicator set (the focus of this study). Running from 2021 to 2024, this project aimed to assess the suitability of the indicators for municipalities of varying sizes, resource availability, specific physical climate risks, and level of maturity and knowledge on the topic of CCA. It involved employees from nine small and medium-sized Vestland municipalities, Trondheim municipality, and the County Authority of Vestland. To place the participating municipalities into the national context, their population and centrality are shown in Fig. 1 . Due to the dynamic nature of CPK, reflection on the experience and learning from its successes and pitfalls is vital 30 , 31 . The high level of CCA responsibility placed on Norwegian municipalities calls for a better understanding of the most effective pathways to engage these local authorities in CCA research, both to leverage their place-based knowledge and to ensure that their unique challenges are understood and addressed throughout the research process. Norström et al. 9 define CPK in the context of sustainability research as “iterative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future”. CPK has become a widely used approach in different strands of sustainability research, including climate change 32 and and disaster risk reduction 33 – 35 . There are various interpretations of CPK, with differing formats, participants, and objectives. A common classification of CPK research distinguishes between normative approaches, which focus on how different actors (should) co-produce, and descriptive approaches, which analyse how co-production actually occurs 32 . Going beyond this dichotomy, Bandola-Gill et al. 36 use citation network analysis on literature across disciplines to identify five meanings of co-production (science-politics relationship, knowledge democracy, transdisciplinarity, boundary management, and evidence-use intervention). These meanings differ in their theoretical underpinnings, what they consider the key challenge to address, and to some extent, the discipline in which they are applied, with environmental and sustainability science dominating in knowledge democracy, transdisciplinarity, and boundary management. The authors highlight that these meanings share an understanding of co-production as a process involving researchers and non-researchers, and as a strategy aimed at resolving ‘wicked problems’. Based on a review of publications in climate change research, Bremer and Meisch 32 identify eight conceptual lenses of co-production (constitutive, interactional, iterative interaction, extended science, public service, institutional, social learning, and empowerment) that differ in what aspect of CPK they highlight, the academic tradition they are rooted in, the purpose with which they are applied, and what are considered success criteria. In contrast to the epistemological emphasis of Bandola-Gill et al.’s meanings, these lenses highlight how co-production is operationalised in climate research. CPK processes can (and arguably should 37 ) combine several lenses to accommodate the ‘messiness’ of co-production and target a broader set of scientific and societal outcomes. Importantly, the lens applied informs the interpretation of how successful the CPK process is; a perceived failure through one lens may be a success through another. Complementary to the eight lenses, the authors identify boundary work as a crosscutting concept that plays a role in most of the lenses. The breadth of applications of CPK in the realm of climate change identified by Bremer and Meisch 32 demonstrate the relevance of co-production to CCA. Climate change is inherently uncertain, and responses to this uncertainty can vary widely among those experiencing it. CPK can increase the acceptance of uncertainties related to climate change and its consequences by creating a shared understanding of the problem and how the associated uncertainties can be addressed 34 . As the impacts of climate change are often local, involvement of stakeholders through CPK can both leverage their place-based knowledge and integrate adaptation initiatives into the local social, political, and ecological context, increasing their sustainability and success rate 2 , 5 , 7 . Pairing scientific knowledge with extra-scientific forms of knowledge can enhance the credibility and acceptance of the results for all stakeholders and promote the practical application of scientific insights in society, thereby bridging the gap between research and decision-making 38 , 39 . CPK is often cited as essential for creating “actionable knowledge” 38 and “usable information” 40 through its iterative nature and continuous interactions between researchers and other stakeholders. Given the dynamic nature and complexity of climate change, its impacts, and adaptation needs, this cyclical approach is valuable in facilitating continuous learning and progress on CCA. Assessing the success of co-production approaches is complex and requires evaluation of both the process and the outcomes 41 . Mansfield 42 introduces a conceptual framework for evaluating co-production in sport and public health partnerships based on resourcefulness (production, access, and ownership of resources), reciprocity (mutual exchange of information), and reflexivity (critical self-awareness). Brix et al. 43 propose a generic programme theory for co-production with citizens, outlining five main rationales for co-production outcomes: innovation potential, individual well-being and citizen empowerment, efficiency and effectiveness, mobilisation of resources, and democracy. The authors elaborate a co-production outcome chain to guide the formulation of locally relevant evaluation indicators that link outcomes, short, medium, and long-term outcomes, and impacts. Meadow and Owen 44 present a framework for linking project activities to societal impacts of climate change research. The framework includes five types of impact (instrumental, conceptual, capacity-building, connectivity, and socio-environmental) that can be used to evaluate how co-production contributes to change. The first four categories can be measured at shorter timescales and serve as indicators of likely longer-term, larger-scale impacts (e.g. increased climate resilience). In addition, the authors stress the importance of recognising contribution to an impact (as one of many factors) in addition to direct attribution. Similarly, Karcher et al. 8 emphasise the need to capture both tangible outputs and intangible outcomes. Through a systematic scoping review, the authors reveal a mismatch between the ambitious goals of knowledge exchange processes, such as policy impact and societal transformation, and the more modest outcomes that are reported, such as improved communication or usability of knowledge. They argue for better alignment between intended outcomes and evaluation metrics, and for greater attention to social learning and process quality. The main aim of the CPK process employed in the Vestland project that this study focuses on was to ensure usability of the CCA indicator set for all Norwegian municipalities. This most closely aligns with Bandola-Gill et al.’s 36 meaning of boundary management. The theory of change underpinning the design of our conceptual framework for the CPK processes was informed by a combination of Bremer and Meisch’s 32 iterative interaction lens – involvement of the end-users will result in more useful indicators, and institutional lens – stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration between and within municipalities will increase their capacity for CCA action. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework underpinning the CPK process in the Vestland project. It moves from inputs through a cyclical interactive process between the researchers and the practitioners (i.e. municipalities), to concrete outputs, intangible outcomes, and long-term impacts. The cyclical process is characterised by autonomous ‘homework’ assignments for the municipalities (denoted by ‘H’ in the framework) in preparation for joint workshops (‘W’), after which the indicator set is revised by the researchers (‘R’). Each cycle addresses a different aspect of the indicator set’s usability: relevance for municipalities with different characteristics, perceived quality of the indicators, data availability for calculating the indicators, and operationalising the indicators within municipal systems. A comprehensive timeline of these essential activities is presented in the Methods section. As encouraged by Brix et al. 43 , Karcher et al. 8 and Meadow and Owen 44 , the framework distinguishes between outputs and outcomes expected to be achieved during or shortly after the project and long-term structural impacts that the project contributes to. In addition to a revised indicator set (‘Indicator set V’), the expected outputs of the project emphasise internal communications in the form of meeting minutes and newsletters (‘Meeting minutes’) and external communications through reports, popular science articles, and academic journal articles (‘Publications’). The fourth output, a web-based indicator tool, addresses the usability of the indicator set in very practical terms by improving access and user-friendliness. While the outputs most closely align with the iterative interaction lens, the expected outcomes place more emphasis on the institutional lens by addressing collaboration, knowledge exchange, and anchoring of CCA in the participating municipalities, in addition to usable indicators. Finally, the impacts broaden the scope from the participating municipalities to all municipalities in Norway. The first impact of climate resilient municipalities has a long time horizon, while the latter three are expected to be evident earlier and contribute to the climate resilience impact. The success of the CPK approach employed in the Vestland project is assessed here using a set of qualitative and quantitative metrics that address both the process itself and the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved 41 – 44 . The metrics are derived from analysis of the evolution of the indicator set, a post-project survey of the participants, a document analysis of municipal plans conducted prior to and following the project, meeting minutes from the workshops, and personal reflections from the involved researchers. The metrics are shown in Table 1 and described more in the Methods section. We explore the factors that contribute to or hinder productive transdisciplinary knowledge creation on CCA with municipalities in Norway, providing insights into significant barriers that must be addressed to achieve successful CPK with local authorities. This study addresses the implementation gap 3 and the findings can be utilised by researchers and practitioners to unlock the potential towards a more proactive approach to CCA in medium and small municipalities 45 . Although this study is focused on Norway, the findings are transferable to most small and medium-sized municipalities. The next section presents the results of the CPK process evaluation, elaborating on the achievements, failures and challenges faced in the project in relation to the expected outcomes as described in the conceptual framework. This is followed by a Discussion section, in which we discuss the implications of our findings for use of CPK in the context of CCA and co-production processes involving small to medium-sized local authorities. Finally, the Methods section provides more detail on the activities in the Vestland project, as well as the methodological underpinnings of the evaluation metrics. Results The evaluation of a CPK process requires reflection on both the process and the outcomes 7 , 8 , 41 – 43 . In this section we present the results of our evaluation metrics and discuss the successes, challenges and failures of the CPK process in the Vestland project. Table 1 provides an overview of the metrics employed to assess the project's process and the four outcomes (Fig. 2 ): ‘usable and relevant indicators’, ‘cross-sectoral collaboration’, ‘anchoring of CCA’, and ‘intermunicipal knowledge exchange’. Further details on the metrics can be found in the Methods section. Comments given in the evaluation survey are interwoven throughout this section as supporting evidence and examples of the municipalities’ perceptions and reflections. Table 1 Metrics for each outcome category. Metrics not derived from the survey are indicated with an asterisk (*). Metric Timeframe Result Process Perception of project goal achievement Project 69% Involved departments per municipality (in workshops)* Project Poor continuity and breadth of involvement. Only 2 people participated in all WS. 2 municipalities had reps only 1 WS, only 4 municipalities had reps in all WS. 5 municipalities had more than 1 rep in at least 1 WS. Perceived effectiveness of communication with research group Project 36% Perceived effectiveness of physical workshops Project 69% Perceived effectiveness of digital workshops Project 17% Perceived effectiveness of homework Project 43% Sufficient time devoted to project Project Poor. Municipalities struggled to fulfil the required in-kind (time) contributions for the research project agreed upon at the start. # additional communications between researchers and practitioners Project 3 newsletters, 8 interviews on economic indicators, 3 meetings with municipal spatial planners on risk indicators, 6 steering committee meetings with memo, Teams channel established, regular email reminders of homework. Usable and relevant climate change adaptation indicators # process indicators* Project From 17 to 22 # risk indicators* Project From 0 to 5 # output indicators* Project From 11 to 4 # outcome indicators* Project From 23 to 5 % Municipalities that expect to use the indicators Expected 40% Usefulness of indicators for large municipalities Expected 71% Usefulness of indicators for medium-sized municipalities Expected 64% Usefulness of indicators for small municipalities Expected 50% Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with high maturity on CCA Expected 62% Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with low maturity on CCA Expected 50% Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with different types of climate risks Expected 57% Increased cross-departmental collaboration in the municipality Perceived effectiveness of internal collaboration Project 57% Change in working methods and collaboration in the municipality Project 29% Collaboration on CCA Expected 33% Increased collaboration internally Expected 47% Anchoring of climate change adaptation in the municipality # plans that mention CCA* Project 10 plans developed/updated since project start, 3 updates planned. Increased access to relevant CCA information Project Set V shared with participants Web-based tool prototype deployed, launch webinar attended by 130 + people. New knowledge and competence on CCA Expected 53% Political anchoring of CCA Expected 0% New routines in planning on CCA Expected 27% Description of responsibilities and tasks on CCA Expected 13% Intermunicipal knowledge exchange # interaction with other relevant projects and/or initiatives* Project 2 # presentations in relevant fora outside the project* Project 5 # popular and scientific publications Project 2 Perceived effectiveness of collaboration with others in the workshops Project 8% collaboration on CCA with other municipalities Expected 0% collaboration on CCA with County Authority Expected 40% collaboration on CCA with researchers and consultants Expected 13% Process Overall, the municipalities were positive about the CPK approach employed in the Vestland project. However, two main challenges emerged from the evaluation: municipal resource allocation and establishing effective modes of interaction. These are addressed in more detail below. Many municipalities struggled to dedicate sufficient resources to the project, as illustrated by one municipality’s comment “the project is very good, but the effort from our municipality [was] meagre”. This highlights the importance of CPK participants being able (and willing) to commit and engage in the CPK process for them to reap the expected benefits. The feedback received from the municipalities point to several possible explanations for the lack of resources or engagement in the project. Size is likely an important factor (“we have not had the capacity to include many people from the municipality in this”). This is an important but difficult problem to tackle, as the very lack of resources that make it difficult for small municipalities to participate also mean that they arguably have the most to gain from taking part in a project like this, both in terms of increased knowledge and capacity as well as network building 46 . In addition, participation ensures that the views and challenges of these types of municipalities are also represented in the CPK outputs. Lack of money and time have been shown to be major factors in determining the success of science-policy interfaces, including stakeholder participation and building trust 47 , 48 . Another recurring theme that may have contributed to the limited resources made available for the CPK process is a lack of experience with research projects, combined with unclear expectations of the municipalities. In response to the question “what are the most important lessons you have taken from this project?”, one project participant answered, “set up an internal working group before we say yes to joining an R&D project”. Another reflected that “we could have anchored [the project] better in our municipality. We should have had an internal start-up meeting to distribute roles and responsibilities. It is a big setback for us that no technical or planning resources have participated”. This comment illustrates the need for not just sufficient, but also the correct resources. Identifying the right people within the municipalities is challenging, even for the municipality's own employees. In addition, many municipalities experience a high turnover, making it difficult to get an overview of how responsibilities are distributed among departments and individuals within those departments. The CPK process in this project likewise suffered from high turnover in participants from the municipalities as a result, which hindered continuity. The co-production format in the Vestland project was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The decision to hold mostly digital workshops was largely informed by the pandemic-related restrictions, and the frequency of contact was reduced due to such restrictions. This negatively impacted the grounding of the project, the sense of cohesion among project partners, and the effectiveness of communication between researchers and the partner municipalities. This is reflected in the metrics where there was a clear preference for the physical workshops (69%) over the digital ones (17%). More physical gatherings, especially at the start of the project, could have helped anchor the project better and would have led to better understanding of expectations, roles, and responsibilities in the project. Many municipalities indicated there should have been more frequent contact. As one municipality responded, “there were often long breaks between the tasks and the municipality often ‘forgot’ to work on [CCA] and indicators […] because of other tasks that had to be done”. This suggests that the unidirectional forms of communication, like the newsletter and homework reminders, were not perceived as equally engaging or ‘valid’ as the multilateral forms of contact (e.g. workshops). This issue was likely more pronounced for municipalities that have little experience with CCA, since they often do not know where to start and require more guidance. This was also the case for the homework, which was perceived by some as too difficult (“some of the homework was very difficult to answer... Perhaps there could have been ‘instructions for use’ for retrieving e.g. KOSTRA numbers?”) or too much (“the homework could perhaps have been divided into smaller parts - not too little, but also not too much, as was the case at times in this project”). This highlights the need for receiver-adjusted communication as a key factor for learning from research 49 . For an effective CPK process, communication channels must thus not only be well-established, but there must also be a mutual sense of approachability between the researchers and the other participants. The Vestland project was not particularly successful in this aspect; the municipalities rarely reached out to the researchers for support despite the difficulties they were experiencing with the homework. Adjusting the project by establishing more frequent steering committee meetings, a Teams channel and regular reminder emails with encouragement to ask for help, in addition to the newsletters, did not improve the communication between the municipalities and the researchers. As feedback loops are essential to CPK processes 50 stronger focus on engagement and familiarity at the start of the project would likely have lowered the threshold for reaching out. The start-up meeting per municipality that was suggested by one of the participants may be a good approach, and a representative from the research group should participate to ensure anchoring early in the project. Usable and relevant indicators The first expected outcome of the project was more usable and relevant CCA indicators for all Norwegian municipalities. This was evaluated through a thorough assessment of how the indicators evolved in each cycle of the CPK process, as well as the municipalities’ perceptions. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of how the indicator set evolved over the three CPK cycles. A detailed overview of the assessment conducted is provided in the Supplementary Data. The largest change in the composition of Set V occurred in the first revision. This revision was based on discussions in Workshop #1 on the relevance of the indicators to municipalities with different characteristics, an independent quality assessment of the indicators by the researchers, and integration of the recommendations that came out of a tangential project with only Trondheim municipality. With a group consisting of employees from several municipal units covering urban planning, climate and environment, building applications, municipal engineering, and municipal real estate, this project aimed to delve deeper into the usefulness of the indicators by applying them to Trondheim. Compared to other Norwegian municipalities, Trondheim municipality is relatively experienced with CCA. This project thus provided a ‘conservative’ check of the indicators’ usefulness; if Trondheim encountered difficulties with any indicator, less experienced municipalities would likely also struggle. This first revision led to a significant reduction in the number of indicators, particularly outcome indicators. These are notoriously the most difficult categories of indicators to formulate and measure, which makes them prone to criticism in terms of relevance and usability 28 , 51 . Most of the deleted indicators were removed because Trondheim municipality had found them to be irrelevant or too difficult to use, for example because data was not readily available. Another significant change was the designation of risk indicators. Several indicators in Set O already directly addressed climate but were classified as outcome indicators. Creating a separate risk indicator category served to highlight the importance of climate risk assessment as part of municipal CCA efforts. It is mandatory for municipalities to carry out an overall RVA, and additional ones for new developments. This includes climate risk, but also many other risks, such as terrorist attacks and disease outbreaks. The climate risk section is therefore often very general, and it is more common for municipalities to prepare a qualitative risk matrix based on a traffic light system. During the second and third revisions (V2 and V3), the number of output and outcome indicators further declined, while the number of process indicators increased. The latter tend to be binary indicators or only require a subjective assessment (e.g. low/medium/high). The municipalities’ quality assessment in Workshop #2 uncovered issues such as a lack of data, unclear definitions, and variable relevance of the indicators for different types of municipalities. Indicators with existing and known data sources and an established method for valuation were more likely to be kept. Many indicators were also rephrased to improve clarity. In Workshop #3 the discussions were based on the municipalities’ hands-on experience attempting to collect data and calculate some of the indicators. This resulted in more technically oriented discussions on e.g. potential biases or errors in the available datasets, and highlighted differences in the level and quality of data collection among the municipalities. These inputs did not result in significant changes in the indicators themselves but provided valuable input for the supporting fact sheets that describe the purpose of each indicator, how to collect the required data, and how to calculate the value. These indicator fact sheets can be found in the web-based tool (see Data availability). The tendency away from quantitative (mostly output and outcome) indicators and towards qualitative (process) indicators reflects a tension between designing indicators that accurately track CCA and those that do not require significant additional effort. The tension between accuracy and efficiency manifested itself in several contradictions during the CPK process. Even though qualitative indicators were consistently favoured, a recurring criticism was that an indicator was subjective. This was mostly framed as making it difficult to compare results between municipalities. The question of whether the indicators should be comparable between municipalities or whether it is more valuable to track relative changes within each municipality has implications for the units in which indicators are measured, the baselines used, and how the results should be collected (e.g. locally or in a central database). The participating municipalities had differing opinions on this issue, likely exacerbated by a lack of clarity on CCA requirements and responsibilities at the national level 15 . While we did not achieve full consensus on the issue during the project, the discussions resulted in the inclusion of suggested standardised approaches, e.g. a suggested baseline, in the fact sheets, and the development of a GIS model in collaboration with GIS experts from two of the participating municipalities to standardise the calculation method for the risk indicators. Another contradiction lay in the size of the indicator set. While many municipalities worried that the set was too extensive and complex, they also frequently suggested adding new indicators or splitting existing ones. The heterogeneity in size, geography, risk profile, municipal resources and expertise among the participating municipalities led to several of the more advanced indicators being retained despite being currently difficult or time-consuming for most municipalities to measure. This ensures that the indicator set is also relevant for the more advanced municipalities and creates ambition for progress in the less mature ones. The metrics show that by the end of the project, only 40% of the municipalities expected to use the indicators going forward, and the indicator set was still perceived to be most relevant for large municipalities and those with existing CCA expertise. This is likely closely linked to the resource constraints above and not solely a reflection on the value of the indicators themselves. Many municipalities already feel overstretched, making CCA yet another burden 6 . As one commented, “the indicators that require additional work for the municipalities to calculate must be particularly relevant for [us to use them]”. Another expressed concern over the impact of the CCA indicators on their other municipal duties: “If it is too extensive and too much work, it will delay the planning processes”. The activities in this CPK process focused on individual indicators and insufficiently addressed the complete set to comprehensively address this contradiction together with the municipalities. While the researchers strove to find a balance between sufficient detail and manageable length of the set, we could have benefited from a targeted evaluation session on this with the municipalities. An interesting insight from the discussions with the municipalities was that the indicator set could be useful in multiple ways: in addition to being a tool for CCA monitoring, there was an emergent desire for the indicator set to function as a tool for political pressure. This was particularly visible in the group discussions on more advanced indicators. The issue of resource constraints for smaller municipalities was very prominent, but in several cases, the potential for sending a political message with an indicator trumped their low direct usefulness. For example, the indicator “What proportion of confirmed investment projects this year have shown and assessed the consequences of future climate change?” requires a manual review of documents, which is very time-consuming. However, it shows whether the municipality considers climate change in its investments – an important measure for political anchoring of CCA. The indicator was initially deleted in Set V1 for being too difficult to monitor but was added back into Set V2 after several municipalities argued for its value as an aspirational target. Another example was the indicator “How many person-years are formally set aside for coordinating climate change adaptation work?”. Despite acknowledging that it can be difficult for small municipalities to appoint a dedicated CCA coordinator, it was decided to keep the indicator for its ability to apply political pressure to make resources available for this. Cross-departmental collaboration The second expected outcome of the Vestland project addresses the need for a multi-disciplinary approach in CCA 11 , including within municipalities. This was evaluated through the participating municipalities’ perception of cross-departmental collaboration during and after the project. The metric “perceived effectiveness of internal collaboration” scored 57% indicating that most of the municipalities experienced improved collaboration between departments. As one put it, “I had expected that we would get better interdisciplinary cooperation internally on climate change adaptation, and we have achieved that”. The internal collaboration seemed to have been sparked mostly by the homework: “We have worked across departments (planning, water management and technical) for the homework. It has been useful, in any case for me. I hope this will continue after the end of the project”. The preparatory homework for each workshop intentionally adopted a broad interdisciplinary perspective to foster internal multi-disciplinary discussions in advance of the workshop. Therefore, it is encouraging that this was acknowledged by several of the municipalities. However, when we look at the metric “change in working methods and collaboration in the municipality” (29%), the results are far less positive. It appears that awareness has increased regarding the need for an interdisciplinary approach at CCA and that this has been attempted in connection with the homework, but that this has not yet led to a significant change. The future-oriented metrics “collaboration on CCA” (33%) and “increased collaboration internally” (47%) are slightly more optimistic, suggesting that the more informal concept of ‘collaboration’ feels more achievable to the municipalities than structural and institutionalised improvements in the way the departments operate. Anchoring of CCA The third expected outcome, anchoring of CCA in the municipalities, is evaluated in terms of production and accessibility of CCA knowledge as well as the official integration of CCA into municipal processes. A clear benefit of the projects was improved competence and understanding of CCA among the participating municipalities, how to measure it using indicators, and “that we must consider climate change in all types of activities”. However, at the end of the project, no significant improvement in CCA anchoring was reported by the municipalities in the form of new planning routines (27%), CCA task descriptions (13%) or political anchoring (0%). Increased knowledge thus did not directly lead to increased use of this knowledge, and there was no direct correlation between acceptance of the knowledge and acceptance of the indicators that are based on this knowledge, similar to findings by Wassen et al 52 . An important aspect contributing to this lack of knowledge implementation and indicator acceptance was of a practical nature; during the workshops, it became clear that some participants were unsure of how to integrate CCA in the existing municipal structures. Factors such as seniority, affiliation to a specific unit, and position of the different municipal employees taking part in the project might have influenced their perceptions and whether they felt enabled or motivated to initiate structural changes. There was a clear demand for more practical support in tracking the indicators (e.g. through the web-based tool) and calculating their value (e.g. through factsheets that explain the indicator’s purpose, data sources, and calculation steps). This indicates that while the projects did result in “less conventional outcomes such as building new understandings, relationships and social networks [that] can pave the way for larger-scale and longer-term changes” 9 , there is value in using the CPK process to at least pave the way for the more concrete, technical solutions to speed up the implementation of the developed solutions. In terms of anchoring CCA through municipal documents, some progress could be seen. The initial review of planning documents in 2022 revealed that planning in smaller municipalities generally adheres to minimum legislative requirements. More recent plans tend to be significantly more aligned with climate change considerations and projections. The size of the municipality and the availability of skilled personnel to work on climate-related issues play a crucial role in determining whether the planning framework is up-to-date and whether climate adaptation efforts are well-coordinated. Since the initial mapping, several municipalities have updated their plans, carried out new overall RVAs, prepared thematic plans that deal with CCA, or have announced ambitions to include CCA in their municipal plans. Only three out of the ten participating municipalities had not updated or added any plans with relevance for CCA. However, there is a significant lag between ambition, preparation and final acceptance of municipal plans; for example, Trondheim’s municipal plan for 2022–2034 was not formally adopted until 2025. The low values on many of the anchoring metrics, as well as the metric on working methods and collaboration in the municipality discussed in the previous section, suggest that anchoring of CCA in the municipality was perhaps too ambitious as an outcome for the three-year project timeframe. Similar experiences have been observed in the context of CCA initiatives within municipalities 53 . The integration of CCA in internal municipal systems and political expressions is likely an impact of this project that will take more time to emerge 8 , 44 and should ideally be tracked over the coming years. Intermunicipal knowledge exchange The fourth expected outcome of the project addresses the importance of communication and collaboration between different entities. This was measured by the number of relevant cross-entity interactions the project had and to what extent the municipalities expected better collaboration with others as a result of their experiences in the project. The Vestland project was reasonably successful in engaging with other relevant initiatives, including joint workshops and presentations in municipal CCA-related events. These efforts served to stimulate both mutual learning and network building beyond the project consortium. The publication of (popular) scientific articles served to disseminate the project findings to the wider community of practitioners and researchers. While it is difficult to translate these metric numbers into concrete impact, there have been several new joint initiatives with projects we engaged with during the Vestland project (e.g. the online platform that the web-based tool is now part of, see Data availability). This indicates that these interactions were indeed successful. The municipalities were most optimistic about their working relationship with the County Authority (40%). The same optimism was not present regarding cooperation with other municipalities, both during the project (8%) and beyond (0%). This is unfortunate, as the difficulty in prioritising CCA for small municipalities means that cooperation and networks are essential 53 . The design of the CPK activities could have encouraged this more explicitly within the project, for example through cross-municipal homework assignments, creating a ‘mentor’ system where more advanced municipalities are matched with less experienced ones, and allocating more time for group discussions during the workshops. The partner municipalities from Vestland already share certain resources, such as geologists, GIS experts and public procurement expertise. These existing collaborations could have been leveraged to extend cooperation to more aspects of CCA, as well as serving as inspiration for municipalities that did not yet have such sharing agreements. From outcome to impact It is not realistic so shortly after the project end to evaluate its contribution to the four expected longer-term impacts (more climate resilient municipalities; more efficient climate change adaptation monitoring, reporting, and evaluation; enhanced climate change adaptation data availability and quality; and more holistic municipal responses to climate change, Fig. 2 ) 8 , 43 , 44 . However, we argue that a move in the right direction is tangible for at least the latter three impacts. The project contributed to more effective MRE processes in the municipalities by developing and revising a set of indicators, describing these, and providing examples of how they should be assessed and used. Furthermore, the web-based tool, which is freely available and provided in Norwegian to further ease use and uptake, lays the groundwork for improved CCA data availability and quality. Finally, the project has contributed to a more holistic response to CCA by focusing on an interdisciplinary approach to CCA in the municipalities that participated in the project. This has led to increased internal collaboration, but there is still a lack of anchoring and lasting change in working methods and processes. As discussed above, the anchoring of CCA may have been better suited as an impact rather than an outcome due to the lag between knowledge acquisition and implementation 52 as well as bureaucratic obstacles to change in municipal processes. Discussion The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of engaging in CPK with Norwegian municipalities to develop a set of usable and relevant CCA indicators. The CPK approach and its assessment described in this paper provide insights on challenges and benefits of CPK in CCA research projects. Anchoring the project at the start is particularly crucial for small and medium-sized local authorities to ensure they understand what it means to take part in a CPK process. The Vestland project specifically targeted municipalities of various sizes, with the aim of ensuring representation of a broad spectrum of needs in the resulting CCA indicator set. The issue of representation and equality is an integral part of the CPK methodology 9 , 41 , and in our case arguably led to more relevant and usable indicators (see Section 2.2). However, we struggled to get many of the municipalities to sufficiently engage in the project. This was a combination of unclear expectations of their role in the project, a lack of human resource availability and high turnover in employees, and low levels of expertise on CCA. Municipalities need to be willing and able to commit to active and dedicated participation throughout the project period to be able to benefit. In addition, the right people should be involved. Based on the experiences in the Vestland project, continuity is impactful enough to warrant its own evaluation metric (see the Results section). When involving institutions in CPK, it should be recognised that it is still individuals who participate in the actual process. The continued engagement at individual level is then arguably as important as engagement at institutional level, especially when the institution is represented by a single person in the project. A comprehensive mapping of relevant municipal stakeholders at the start of the CPK process, carried out by the municipalities and the researchers, could be an effective strategy to identify the most useful participants within an organisation. Such an activity can also serve to build trust and understanding between the researchers and the municipality, which will encourage more open communication and mutual exchange of information throughout the project. To increase accessibility to CPK for resource-strapped stakeholders, the project activities should be as low-threshold as possible in e.g. cost and time. Moving towards online events is a promising avenue, but as our evaluation showed, digital workshops are not necessarily an effective solution unless very well planned and executed to stimulate engagement and a sense of community among the participants. Although research has shown that virtual workshops can be effective 54 , 55 , the ‘soft’ aspects such as interaction between participants and network building have been found to be most challenging to achieve successfully in online settings 56 , 57 . If we want to successfully engage with stakeholder groups with limited resources, researchers need to be more creative in utilising the increasing array of digital tools available to design effective non-physical CPK activities (see Buelo et al. 58 for an example of using Facebook). The varying degrees of CCA expertise among the Vestland project participants was beneficial, but it could have been exploited more effectively. The most significant revision (from Set O to V1, Fig. 3 ) was mostly based on inputs from the largest (and most experienced) municipality, Trondheim, which had gone through the indicators in depth in an additional CPK process. Although this was valuable input to the project, the transferability of Trondheim’s experiences to the smaller and less experienced municipalities is limited. Ideally, all municipalities would go through a similar intensive CPK process from their individual starting point, but this is clearly unrealistic given the resource constraints discussed above. Introducing a ‘mentor’ system by pairing inexperienced participants with their more advanced peers during the CPK process could stimulate more targeted discussions on the differences and similarities between their contexts. It is often the case that attention to a certain cause recedes once external funding and the supporting framework, in this case access to scientific capacity, workshops and project meetings, disappear 59 . As one participant stated, “[these types of] projects give managers time to prioritise cooperation and the acquisition of specialist knowledge by those under them, but unfortunately this can quickly pass when the project is over”. Municipalities would benefit from an extended timeframe and funding, where they can receive support for long-term strategic anchoring of the results into their organisational structures after the project finishes. This would enhance the impact of these kinds of research projects, speed up the adaptation process and increase the long-term commitment of municipalities. A possible pathway for this to use CPK processes to stimulate the joining of existing (regional, national, or international) networks or the creation of new ones. In 2017, Trøndelag county created a network to increase municipal cooperation and knowledge sharing and protect buildings and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. The network includes a wide range of partners including research organisations, national government bodies such as the Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate and Norwegian Mapping Authority, and private sector organisations. A 2021 review of the network’s impact concluded that the breadth of partners and the expertise they bring in was a significant contributor to the network’s success and resulted in a wide range of joint activities from research projects and courses to workshops and applications for CCA measure implementation funds 60 . Research of national 53 and international networks such as the Covenant of Mayors 61 has shown that multilevel structures and sufficient financial support for smaller local authorities are vital in maximising the contribution of small local authorities to climate targets. Experiences from the Vestland project have shown that collaborative actions can stimulate CCA awareness and action. Although a universal set of CCA indicators can contribute speeding up adaptation MRE in municipalities as well as ensuring some level of comparability between municipalities, engaging all municipalities in some form of CPK to develop CCA capacities may lead to more profound and sustainable adaptive behaviour changes. Direct and intensive engagement with the indicators enhances understanding of the challenges and necessity of adaptation, increases the relevance of the indicators, and facilitates anchoring in the municipal systems. Our findings suggest that including the implementation of CPK processes and long-term transdisciplinary collaboration in national policies and funding mechanisms can be effective in driving local CCA. Further research is needed on how to ensure a sustainable continuation of the municipal adaptation tracking process in small and medium municipalities beyond short-term project lifetimes. Municipalities that took part in CPK processes such as the ones described here should be followed up to assess the long-term success of the CPK process, in terms of adaptive capacity, continued knowledge creation, and cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration. It would be valuable to explore the expression of future CPK processes changes as the municipalities’ maturity on CCA increases. It would also be interesting to assess how characteristics such as economic factors, dominant industries, climate vulnerabilities, and where the municipal council lies on the political spectrum, influences attitudes towards CCA as well as the CPK process in Norway. More knowledge on how to achieve successful research collaboration with small municipalities is needed. Further research should investigate how CPK processes can help municipalities to make progress in CCA within the resource constraints they face. Methods Co-production of knowledge activities The Vestland project started with the initial CCA indicator set developed in 2021, referred to as Set O 27 . The revised versions generated throughout the CPK cycles are referred to as Set V and numbered according to the iteration. There are three iterations in total. Table 2 Timeline and key activities in Vestland project. Participant numbers are excluding the researchers. Date Activities Description Aug 2021 Project start-up Jan 2022 Homework #1 Workshop #1 (online) Homework : review Set O. Participants : 14 Aim : assess relevance of Set O for municipalities with different characteristics Format : 2 group discussions on indicator subsets (55 min) and economic indicators (40 min). First session: evaluate subset of indicators on relevance and suitability. Second session: discuss economic indicators used in the municipalities, which ones are preferred/needed, data availability and quality. Each session was followed by plenary discussion. Apr 2022 Interviews on economic indicators 8 interviews with 1–5 municipality representatives (total 16 individuals) with finance and/or CCA responsibilities. Interview guide was sent 1 week prior. All interviews were semi-structured. Interviews focused on the current use of economic indicators, preferences/need for economic CCA indicators that can reveal implementation costs and direct/indirect economic risk of inaction, and how to identify CCA efforts in the municipal budgets. Dec 2022 Homework #2 Workshop #2 (online) Homework : score Set V1 indicators against quality criteria. Participants : 13 Aim : assess quality of Set V1 (relevance, data availability, efficiency/time consumption, validity). Format : presentation from Trondheim project. 1 group discussion. Participants were divided into three groups to discuss a subset of Set V1 (55 min), followed by plenary discussion. Feb 2023 Homework #3 Homework : calculate value of at least 2 indicators per type (process, risk, output, outcome). Mar 2023 Workshop #3 (online) Participants : 11 Aim : test data availability and usability of Set V2 indicators. Format : presentation of results from municipalities, followed by open discussion on calculation methods, data availability, ambiguity in the indicators, responsibility distribution for tracking the indicators, and other experiences gained from homework. Oct 2023 Homework #4 Workshop #4 (physical) Homework : find indicator data from publicly available sources. Participants : 14 Aim : gain experience with using Set V3, give input on the web-based indicator tool. Format : presentation from another co-creation project on indicator-based sustainability assessment of CCA measures for municipalities. Presentation on web-based indicator tool. Group discussion on indicators followed by plenary discussion. Survey opened. Nov 2023 Survey Survey to evaluate the CPK process closed. Oct 2024 Project closing Metrics We developed a set of metrics to evaluate the CPK process and to what extent the project achieved its expected outcomes (Fig. 2 ). The metrics are calculated using a mixed-method approach 41 including analysis of the evolution of the indicator set, a post-project survey of the participants, a document analysis of municipal plans conducted prior to and after the project, meeting minutes from the workshops, and personal reflections from the involved researchers. Table 3 shows the methods and data sources that each metric is calculated from. Most metrics are based on the post-project survey. This anonymous online survey was sent out to the project participants in October 2023 after Workshop #4. The survey was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research ( https://sikt.no/en/home ). In total, 15 responses were received, representing 60% of the persons participating in one or more of the four workshops. During the project period, the participating municipalities experienced a high staff turnover, which is one of the reasons for the reduced response rate. The survey consisted of questions with a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘To a very small extent’ to ‘To a very large extent’), binary (yes/no) questions with possibility to comment, and open questions. The survey questions are available in Supplementary Materials. For the binary survey questions, the metric value is calculated as the percentage of respondents that answered “yes”; for those with a Likert scale, the value is the percentage of respondents that answered “to a large extent” or “to a very large extent”. For the participating municipalities, the most important municipal plan types that are common to all municipalities were evaluated for reference to climate risk and CCA at the beginning and end of the project. This applies to the municipal plan's area section and overall RVA. We also mapped new RVAs related to area and zoning plans and new relevant thematic plans for the period after the initial mapping and searched for updated flood and land slide hazard maps from The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). In addition, we performed a search with the keywords “climate risk” and “climate vulnerability” on the municipalities' websites. The assessment of the mapping is qualitative, but the mapping was documented in an Excel spreadsheet. After each workshop, the researchers revised the indicators based on the discussions and feedback from the municipalities. This included rephrasing, removing, splitting, or merging indicators, reordering them, and adding new ones. The changes were recorded in an Excel sheet along with the quality scoring and comments from both the researchers and the municipalities. The full overview of indicators and revisions is available in the Supplementary Data. Table 3 Metrics and the methods/data source used to measure them. Timeframe indicates whether the metric refers to the project period (‘Project’) or expected impacts (‘Expected’). For metrics based on the survey, the Source lists the relevant question. Metrics not based on the survey are indicated with an asterisk (*). Metric Timeframe Source Process Perception of project goal achievement Project Have your expectations for the project been met? Involved departments per municipality (in workshops)* Project Meeting minutes Perceived effectiveness of communication with research group Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – communication with research group Perceived effectiveness of physical workshops Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – physical workshops Perceived effectiveness of digital workshops Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – digital workshops Perceived effectiveness of homework Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – homework Sufficient time devoted to project Project survey comments, personal reflections, meeting minutes # additional communications between researchers and practitioners Project Meeting minutes, project group communications Usable and relevant climate change adaptation indicators # process indicators* Project Comparison of Set O and Set V3 # risk indicators* Project Comparison of Set O and Set V3 # output indicators* Project Comparison of Set O and Set V3 # outcome indicators* Project Comparison of Set O and Set V3 % Municipalities that expect to use the indicators Expected Will your municipality use the indicators in the work in CCA going forward? Usefulness of indicators for large municipalities Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – large municipalities Usefulness of indicators for medium-sized municipalities Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – medium-sized municipalities Usefulness of indicators for small municipalities Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – small municipalities Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with high maturity on CCA Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – municipalities with high maturity on CCA Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with low maturity on CCA Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – municipalities with low maturity on CCA Usefulness of indicators for municipalities with different types of climate risks Expected To what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities – Different types of climate risks Increased cross-departmental collaboration in the municipality Perceived effectiveness of internal collaboration Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – internally Change in working methods and collaboration in the municipality Project Has the project contributed to a change in methods of working and collaboration in the municipality? Collaboration on CCA Expected In which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality’s further work with CCA – collaboration Increased collaboration internally Expected To what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality – internally Anchoring of climate change adaptation in the municipality # plans that mention CCA* Project Document review of municipal plans Increased access to relevant CCA information Project Meeting minutes, project group communications New knowledge and competence on CCA Expected In which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality’s further work with CCA – new knowledge and competence Political anchoring of CCA Expected In which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality’s further work with CCA –political anchoring New routines in planning on CCA Expected In which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality’s further work with CCA – new routines in planning Description of responsibilities and tasks on CCA Expected In which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality’s further work with CCA –description of responsibilities and tasks Intermunicipal knowledge exchange # interaction with other relevant projects and/or initiatives* Project Meeting minutes, project group communications # presentations in relevant fora outside the project* Project Meeting minutes, project group communications # popular and scientific publications Project Meeting minutes, project group communications Perceived effectiveness of collaboration with others in the workshops Project To what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project – collaboration with others in the workshops collaboration on CCA with other municipalities Expected To what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality – other municipalities collaboration on CCA with County Authority Expected To what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality – County Authority collaboration on CCA with researchers and consultants Expected To what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality – researchers and consultants Data availability The survey questions are available in the Supplementary Materials. The survey data are not publicly available due to the small sample size which limits the anonymity of the respondents but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Set O, Set V, and the evolution of the indicator set from Set O to Set V is available in the Supplementary Data. The web-based indicator tool is publicly available at https://lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male/ . Note that some deviations in the indicators may be present due to further development of the tool since the end of the Vestland project. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author Contribution **LH** : Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. **ESa** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. **KK** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft. **ID** : Methodology, Writing - Original Draft. **KG** : Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Supervision. **ESi** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Acknowledgement L.H, E.Sa., K.K., E.Si and K.G. disclose support for the research of this work from RFF Vestland (grant number 322875). L.H, El.S., K.K., Ed.S and I.D. disclose support for the research of this work from Norwegian Environment Agency. The authors would like to thank the project partners for their insights on the research and the manuscript. We would also like extend gratitude to Prof. Dr.-Ing. Birte Frommer, Luise Spieker, and the other participants in the Special Collection Writers Workshop for excellent discussions and feedback. Data Availability The survey questions are available in the Supplementary Materials.The survey data are not publicly available due to the small sample size which limits the anonymity of the respondents but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Set O, Set V, and the evolution of the indicator set from Set O to Set V is available in the Supplementary Data.The web-based indicator tool is publicly available at [https://lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male/](https:/lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male) . Note that some deviations in the indicators may be present due to further development of the tool since the end of the Vestland project. References Harvey, B. et al. Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: challenges and insights. Glob. Chall. 3, (2019). Petzold, J. et al. A global assessment of actors and their roles in climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 1250–1257 (2023). Rogers, N. J. L., Adams, V. M. & Byrne, J. A. Agenda-setting and policy leadership for municipal climate change adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 161, (2024). Rylenius, T. W. & Hamza, M. The fragmentation of climate change adaptation – the Sweden case. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 15, 497–515 (2024). Nalau, J., Preston, B. L. & Maloney, M. C. Is adaptation a local responsibility? Environ. Sci. Policy 48, 89–98 (2015). Selseng, T. & Gjertsen, A. What drives sustainable climate change adaptation at the local level? Approaching three knowledge gaps. Sustain. Dev. (2024) doi: 10.1002/sd.3043 . Singh, R. K., Singh, A., Zander, K. K., Mathew, S. & Kumar, A. Measuring successful processes of knowledge co-production for managing climate change and associated environmental stressors: Adaptation policies and practices to support Indian farmers. J. Environ. Manage. 282, 111679 (2021). Karcher, D. B., Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R. M., van Putten, I. E. & Reed, M. S. Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 125, 202–218 (2021). Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020). Høydahl, E. Sentralitetsindeksen. Oppdatering med 2020-kommuner . (2020). Ministry of Climate and Environment. Meld. St. 26 (2022–2023) A changing climate – united for a climate-resilient society . (2023). Office of the Auditor General. The Office of the Auditor General’s Investigation into Government Authorities’ Effort to Adapt Infrastructure and Built-up Areas to a Changing Climate . https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/reports/en-2021-2022/document-3-6-2021-2022---investigation-into-government-authorities-effort-to-adapt-infrastructure-and-built-up-areas-to-a-changing-climate.pdf (2022). Klemetsen, M. & Dahl, M. S. Hvor Godt Er Norske Kommuner Rustet for Klimaendringer? https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2686544/Rapport%202020%2005%20web4.pdf?sequence=10&isAllowed=y (2020). Rusdal, T., Brendehaug, E. & Aall, C. Kartlegging Av Erfaringer Fra Arbeidet Med Klimatilpasning i Små Og Mellomstore Kommuner . https://www.ks.no/globalassets/fagomrader/samfunnsutvikling/klima/RAPPORT-KLIMATILPASNING-statussmakommuner-EV-juni2019.pdf (2019). Skjeflo, S. W. & Romundstad, R. Hvor Langt Har Norske Kommuner Kommet i Klimatilpasningsarbeidet? Spørreundersøkelse Om Klimatilpasning Våren 2023 . https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3096713/Rapport%2022%2007%20sisteversj-web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (2023). European Commission: Directorate-General for Climate Action et al. Study on Adaptation Modelling - Comprehensive Desk Review - Climate Adaptation Models and Tools . (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021). Harley, M., Horrocks, L., Hodgson, N. & van Minnen, J. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Indicators . 37 (2008). Moser, S. C. & Ekstrom, J. A. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 22026–22031 (2010). Ricciardi, G. et al. Climate change adaptation cycle for pilot projects development in small municipalities: The northwestern Italian regions case study. City Environ. Interact. 17, 100097 (2023). Vallejo, L. Insights from National Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation Systems . https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/insights-from-national-adaptation-monitoring-and-evaluation-systems_da48ce17-en (2017) doi: 10.1787/da48ce17-en . Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., Lesnikowski, A., Barrera, M. & Heymann, S. J. How to Track Adaptation to Climate Change: A Typology of Approaches for National-Level Application. Ecol. Soc. 18, (2013). Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. Norways Eighth National Communication . (2023). Miljødirektoratet. Miljømål 5.6 - Miljøstatus - Norges klima- og miljømål. Miljøstatus https://miljostatus.miljodirektoratet.no/miljomal/klima/miljomal-5.6 (2024). Noradapt. Norsk klimamonitor. Norsk klimamonitor https://klimamonitor.no (2025). Rød, J. K., Aall, C. & Selseng, T. Towards a holistic climate service: Addressing all four climate risk determinants. Clim. Serv. 38, 100558 (2025). Rød, J. K., Selseng, T. & Aall, C. The geography of future climate risk [English version]. Norsk klimamonitor https://klimamonitor.no/analysar/the-geography-of-future-climate-risk (2023). Sivertsen, E., Sandberg, E., Fjellheim, K., Solli, J. & Lilledal, S. Indikatorer for Måling Av Klimatilpasning Av Arealer, Bygninger Og Infrastruktur i Kommuner Anvisning Og Rammeverk . (2021). Sharifi, A. & Allam, Z. On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 49, 1536–1555 (2022). Mäkinen, K. et al. Indicators for Adaptation to Climate Change at National Level - Lessons from Emerging Practice in Europe . https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/tp_3-2018 (2018). Vincent, K. Development geography I: Co-production. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 46, 890–897 (2022). Di Iacovo, F., Moruzzo, R., Rossignoli, C. M. & Scarpellini, P. Measuring the effects of transdisciplinary research: The case of a social farming project. Futures 75, 24–35 (2016). Bremer, S. & Meisch, S. Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e482 (2017). Holmes, A. & McEwen, L. How to Exchange Stories of Local Flood Resilience From Flood Rich Areas to the Flooded Areas of the Future. Environ. Commun. 14, 597–613 (2020). Sword-Daniels, V. et al. Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards. J. Risk Res. 21, 290–307 (2018). Visconti, C. Co-production of knowledge for climate-resilient design and planning in Naples, Italy. Habitat Int. 135, (2023). Bandola-Gill, J., Arthur, M. & Leng, R. I. What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evid. Policy 19, 275–298 (2023). Bremer, S. et al. Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. Clim. Serv. 13, 42–50 (2019). Muccione, V. et al. Joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation networks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39, 147–152 (2019). van der Hel, S. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 61, 165–175 (2016). Dilling, L. & Lemos, M. C. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 680–689 (2011). Visman, E., Vincent, K., Steynor, A., Karani, I. & Mwangi, E. Defining metrics for monitoring and evaluating the impact of co-production in climate services. Clim. Serv. 26, 100297 (2022). Mansfield, L. Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research. Int. J. Sport Policy 8, 713–729 (2016). Brix, J., Krogstrup,Hanne Kathrine & and Mortensen, N. M. Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government. Local Gov. Stud. 46, 169–185 (2020). Meadow, A. & Owen, G. Planning and Evaluating the Societal Impacts of Climate Change Research Projects: A Guidebook for Natural and Physical Scientists Looking to Make a Difference . https://hdl.handle.net/10150/658313 (2021) doi: 10.2458/10150.658313 . Aall, C. & Groven, K. The Unpredictable Truth: A Proposed Road Map for a Reflect-Then-Act Approach to Climate Uncertainties and Lessons Learned from Norwegian Municipalities. Weather Clim. Soc. 14, 337–347 (2022). Bausch, T. & Koziol, K. New Policy Approaches for Increasing Response to Climate Change in Small Rural Municipalities. SUSTAINABILITY 12, 1894 (2020). Wagner, N., Velander, S., Biber-Freudenberger, L. & Dietz, T. Effectiveness factors and impacts on policymaking of science-policy interfaces in the environmental sustainability context. Environ. Sci. Policy 140, 56–67 (2023). Djenontin, I. N. S. & Meadow, A. M. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ. Manage. 61, 885–903 (2018). Fernández, R. J. How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 171–176 (2016). Mann, C. & Schäfer, M. Developing sustainable water and land management options: reflections on a transdisciplinary research process. Sustain. Sci. 13, 205–217 (2018). Harley, M. & van Minnen, J. Development of Adaptation Indicators . https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/etcacc_tp_2009_6_etcacc_tp_2009_6_adapt_ind-1 (2009). Wassen, M. J., Runhaar, H., Barendregt, A. & Okruszko, T. Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 38, 338–358 (2011). Hauge, Å. L., Hanssen, G. S. & Flyen, C. Multilevel networks for climate change adaptation – what works? Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 11, 215–234 (2018). de Oliveira, M. G., Routley, M. & Phaal, R. The digitalisation of roadmapping workshops. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 65, 101694 (2022). Menary, J. et al. Going virtual: adapting in-person interactive focus groups to the online environment. Emerald Open Res. 1, (2021). Becker, K., Ebbers, J. J. & Engel, Y. Going online: Peer entrepreneur networks in a startup accelerator before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technovation 130, 102917 (2024). Tobin, C., Mavrommati, G. & Urban-Rich, J. Responding to Social Distancing in Conducting Stakeholder Workshops in COVID-19 Era. Societies 10, 98 (2020). Buelo, A., Kirk, A. & Jepson, R. A novel research method for workshops and co-production of interventions: using a secret Facebook group. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 6, 168 (2020). Fünfgeld, H., Fila, D. & Dahlmann, H. Upscaling climate change adaptation in small- and medium-sized municipalities: current barriers and future potentials. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 61, 101263 (2023). Trondheim kommune. Nettverk klimatilpasningTrøndelag - Status 2017–2020 . https://www.statsforvalteren.no/contentassets/544a13b9528e4097a2bd654f22add0d6/nettverk-klimatilpasning-trondelag---statusrapport-2017-2020.pdf (2021). Melica, G. et al. Multilevel governance of sustainable energy policies: The role of regions and provinces to support the participation of small local authorities in the Covenant of Mayors. Sustain. Cities Soc. 39, 729–739 (2018). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryData.xlsx SupplementaryMaterials.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 18 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 17 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 25 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5497789","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593363968,"identity":"b5196432-0718-491b-9a92-61bcf39be1c5","order_by":0,"name":"Lilo Henke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SINTEF Community","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lilo","middleName":"","lastName":"Henke","suffix":""},{"id":593363970,"identity":"c787270b-5da2-4353-a2e0-d65267cd58a5","order_by":1,"name":"Eli Sandberg","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Norwegian Armed Forces","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eli","middleName":"","lastName":"Sandberg","suffix":""},{"id":593363972,"identity":"2472e434-0f2e-42e8-8cec-5d514bbb6429","order_by":2,"name":"Katrin Knoth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SINTEF Community","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katrin","middleName":"","lastName":"Knoth","suffix":""},{"id":593363973,"identity":"9ba4db30-15d6-4378-9e92-85eacf058a35","order_by":3,"name":"Ingjerd Risnes Davøen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UiT The Arctic University of Norway","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ingjerd","middleName":"Risnes","lastName":"Davøen","suffix":""},{"id":593363975,"identity":"f8dc7964-27e1-4ad3-b34a-79fd59da8bc0","order_by":4,"name":"Kyrre Groven","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vestlandsforsking","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kyrre","middleName":"","lastName":"Groven","suffix":""},{"id":593363978,"identity":"3951fe50-1293-4e15-94a3-d6952ebab3dd","order_by":5,"name":"Edvard Sivertsen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SINTEF Community","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edvard","middleName":"","lastName":"Sivertsen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-21 12:23:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104098337,"identity":"1d2aa491-f808-4184-85af-b4b478a92118","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-06 18:26:53","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3513542,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of the ten participating municipalities. Vestland County is outlined in red. Population is based on 2021 data, centrality is for 2020\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/ac977394cb43f4413234a9a5.png"},{"id":104403124,"identity":"1cdc7e5f-adec-49b6-9652-42da42d0a87f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:17:32","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3750922,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework. H = homework for municipalities, W = joint workshop, R = revision by researchers\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/9e8b8b655a42c55368e4cf8d.png"},{"id":104403152,"identity":"0c6c879b-85fe-400c-9201-570ae25d2814","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:17:37","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":88284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSankey diagram of the evolution of the indicator set. P = process (purple), R = risk (blue), T = output (green), O = outcome (yellow), New = added (orange), Del = deleted (red). Width of the flow is proportional to the number of indicators. Note that ‘New’ indicators should be seen as originating from in between the four nodes (i.e. during the indicator revision phases), but they are aligned with the earlier node for visual clarity.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/3e517a88fe21cc4bab4884b5.png"},{"id":104409100,"identity":"27beac37-afa9-422d-a742-5fcd5be42d78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:44:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":8647325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/1f6fe409-e25a-462f-9f6b-08863702f79b.pdf"},{"id":104098338,"identity":"07b893b0-dc35-4c7a-bbe3-fc175ce57013","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-06 18:26:53","extension":"xlsx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":115582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryData.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/91008326542bd07e52c783e2.xlsx"},{"id":104098339,"identity":"d01f62cb-56f1-428c-9d73-d9bcaf6f0c1a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-06 18:26:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":200043,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterials.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5497789/v1/fd2ac8f21932ca95ef938f1b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Co-producing climate change adaptation indicators with small Norwegian municipalities","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eClimate change and adaptation are complex issues that require transdisciplinary collaboration\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, adaptation responsibilities and responses are often fragmented across public, private and civil society actors. A recent global assessment found that local authorities are typically tasked with planning adaptation measures, while implementation is overwhelmingly performed by households and individuals, and monitoring and evaluation are mostly conducted by academic actors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, there is limited evidence of multi-actor collaboration. The direct impacts of climate change are generally local, and municipalities globally are increasingly taking responsibility for climate change adaptation (CCA), either through legislation or voluntarily, leading to competition for municipal resources and attention\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Multiple factors, including lack of resources and competence, conflicting priorities, and local risk perceptions, can make it difficult for local governments to cooperate across departments or sectors and mainstream CCA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA well-established approach for transdisciplinary collaboration in CCA is co-production of knowledge (CPK)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This approach can be seen as an iterative and flexible process between researchers and societal stakeholder groups with the goal of generating usable knowledge that is understandable and relevant for practitioners in solving a specific problem and meeting needs that have been collaboratively identified and formulated\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to evaluate the application of CPK in a research project on CCA indicators in Norwegian municipalities. The results provide insights into the conditions that facilitate successful CPK approaches with small and medium-sized municipalities in the context of CCA. The remainder of this introduction first describes the CCA policy landscape in Norway before reviewing the literature on CPK and methods for evaluating its effectiveness. We then present the conceptual framework, involved stakeholders, and CPK activities informing this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorway has a strongly decentralised governance model in which municipalities are tasked with providing a large share of public services. Of the 357 Norwegian municipalities, about half are classified as small (less than 5000 residents) and a large majority have low centrality. There is no nationally calculated rurality index for Norway, but the Norwegian Bureau of Statistics (SSB) produces a six-class municipal centrality index based on travel times to workplaces and critical services10. The percentages reported here are based on the 2023\u0026ndash;2024 classification (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/artikler/sentralitetsindeksen\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/artikler/sentralitetsindeksen\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The national CCA policy framework states that \u0026ldquo;municipal authorities play a key role in tackling the increasingly widespread consequences of climate change and developing climate-resilient communities within their geographical areas\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e. Legislation requires municipalities to do comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessments (RVA), including climate risk, as part of their civil protection duty. However, an investigation by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway in 2022 on adaptation work by national and local authorities concluded that many municipalities do not include long-term future climate change consequences in their RVA; problem areas uncovered in the RVA are not sufficiently integrated in the municipal planning work; and few municipalities revise existing plans when new risks are uncovered\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Delegating CCA responsibility to so many, mostly small, authorities not only risks a fragmented response but also poses challenges for individual municipalities. These include limited access to human, financial, and knowledge resources, varying levels of political will and difficulties in anchoring and integrating CCA into existing municipal work\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While attention to CCA is increasing among Norwegian decision-makers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, there is a clear need for support in initiating municipal CCA activities and monitoring progress in order to guide further work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process of initiating, implementing and monitoring CCA can be seen as an iterative cycle. Most adaptation frameworks include variations of the following steps: assessing the current status; preparing adaptation goals and strategies; identifying risks and vulnerabilities; selecting and implementing adaptation measures; monitoring and reporting progress; and evaluating the process\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17 CR18\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The steps of monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE) are commonly executed using indicators that are calculated at regular intervals, enabling systematic progress assessments\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In Norway, responsibility for reporting on CCA under the Framework Convention on Climate Change lies with the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, but no national MRE system has been established as yet\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Progress on the national goal \u0026lsquo;Society and ecosystems must be prepared for and adapted to climate change\u0026rsquo; is measured based on a single indicator, which relies on qualitative self-reporting from relevant agencies and only measures adaptation effort and not outcomes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The status and development of the goal thus cannot be calculated. Other efforts to track progress on CCA include the Norwegian Climate Monitor run by the Research Centre on Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation, which regularly conducts surveys at public, private, and household levels\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The centre recently presented a climate risk monitoring framework based on 17 indicators that measure municipal-level climate hazard, vulnerability, exposure, and response\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. They found that the least central municipalities tend to score worst on climate risk vulnerability, impact, and adaptation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough these initiatives, to some extent, enable sectoral, regional, or national monitoring of CCA, their utility for practitioners, such as local governments, in evaluating efforts and steering further action is limited. To fill this gap, a series of CPK processes involving mostly small (population\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5,000) and medium-sized (population 5,000\u0026ndash;20,000) municipalities were implemented to generate an indicator framework for measuring and evaluating municipal CCA efforts. Through the Centre for Research-based Innovation Klima 2050 (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/artikler/sentralitetsindeksen\" target=\"_blank\"\u003ewww.klima2050.no/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.klima2050.no/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), an initial CCA indicator set for Norwegian municipalities was developed in 2021\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e. The indicators were developed through a CPK process involving employees from four municipalities in Tr\u0026oslash;ndelag County, the Tr\u0026oslash;ndelag County Authority and the County Governor of Tr\u0026oslash;ndelag. Building on recommendations in the adaptation literature\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the indicator set contains three indicator categories: process indicators that track progress in adaptation policy processes and actions; output indicators that measure implemented or realised adaptation policies or actions; and outcome indicators that measure the effect and impact of the implemented measures. The scope of the indicators was limited to anchoring of CCA in the organisation and internal processes, and physical impacts on buildings and infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA follow-up project (the \u003cem\u003eVestland project\u003c/em\u003e) employing CPK was set up to test and further develop the indicator set (the focus of this study). Running from 2021 to 2024, this project aimed to assess the suitability of the indicators for municipalities of varying sizes, resource availability, specific physical climate risks, and level of maturity and knowledge on the topic of CCA. It involved employees from nine small and medium-sized Vestland municipalities, Trondheim municipality, and the County Authority of Vestland. To place the participating municipalities into the national context, their population and centrality are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to the dynamic nature of CPK, reflection on the experience and learning from its successes and pitfalls is vital\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The high level of CCA responsibility placed on Norwegian municipalities calls for a better understanding of the most effective pathways to engage these local authorities in CCA research, both to leverage their place-based knowledge and to ensure that their unique challenges are understood and addressed throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorstr\u0026ouml;m et al.\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e define CPK in the context of sustainability research as \u0026ldquo;iterative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future\u0026rdquo;. CPK has become a widely used approach in different strands of sustainability research, including climate change\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and and disaster risk reduction\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. There are various interpretations of CPK, with differing formats, participants, and objectives. A common classification of CPK research distinguishes between normative approaches, which focus on how different actors (should) co-produce, and descriptive approaches, which analyse how co-production actually occurs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Going beyond this dichotomy, Bandola-Gill et al.\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e use citation network analysis on literature across disciplines to identify five meanings of co-production (science-politics relationship, knowledge democracy, transdisciplinarity, boundary management, and evidence-use intervention). These meanings differ in their theoretical underpinnings, what they consider the key challenge to address, and to some extent, the discipline in which they are applied, with environmental and sustainability science dominating in knowledge democracy, transdisciplinarity, and boundary management. The authors highlight that these meanings share an understanding of co-production as a process involving researchers and non-researchers, and as a strategy aimed at resolving \u0026lsquo;wicked problems\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on a review of publications in climate change research, Bremer and Meisch\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e identify eight conceptual lenses of co-production (constitutive, interactional, iterative interaction, extended science, public service, institutional, social learning, and empowerment) that differ in what aspect of CPK they highlight, the academic tradition they are rooted in, the purpose with which they are applied, and what are considered success criteria. In contrast to the epistemological emphasis of Bandola-Gill et al.\u0026rsquo;s meanings, these lenses highlight how co-production is operationalised in climate research. CPK processes can (and arguably should\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) combine several lenses to accommodate the \u0026lsquo;messiness\u0026rsquo; of co-production and target a broader set of scientific and societal outcomes. Importantly, the lens applied informs the interpretation of how successful the CPK process is; a perceived failure through one lens may be a success through another. Complementary to the eight lenses, the authors identify boundary work as a crosscutting concept that plays a role in most of the lenses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe breadth of applications of CPK in the realm of climate change identified by Bremer and Meisch\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e demonstrate the relevance of co-production to CCA. Climate change is inherently uncertain, and responses to this uncertainty can vary widely among those experiencing it. CPK can increase the acceptance of uncertainties related to climate change and its consequences by creating a shared understanding of the problem and how the associated uncertainties can be addressed\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As the impacts of climate change are often local, involvement of stakeholders through CPK can both leverage their place-based knowledge and integrate adaptation initiatives into the local social, political, and ecological context, increasing their sustainability and success rate\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Pairing scientific knowledge with extra-scientific forms of knowledge can enhance the credibility and acceptance of the results for all stakeholders and promote the practical application of scientific insights in society, thereby bridging the gap between research and decision-making\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. CPK is often cited as essential for creating \u0026ldquo;actionable knowledge\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e and \u0026ldquo;usable information\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e through its iterative nature and continuous interactions between researchers and other stakeholders. Given the dynamic nature and complexity of climate change, its impacts, and adaptation needs, this cyclical approach is valuable in facilitating continuous learning and progress on CCA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessing the success of co-production approaches is complex and requires evaluation of both the process and the outcomes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Mansfield\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e introduces a conceptual framework for evaluating co-production in sport and public health partnerships based on resourcefulness (production, access, and ownership of resources), reciprocity (mutual exchange of information), and reflexivity (critical self-awareness). Brix et al.\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e propose a generic programme theory for co-production with citizens, outlining five main rationales for co-production outcomes: innovation potential, individual well-being and citizen empowerment, efficiency and effectiveness, mobilisation of resources, and democracy. The authors elaborate a co-production outcome chain to guide the formulation of locally relevant evaluation indicators that link outcomes, short, medium, and long-term outcomes, and impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeadow and Owen\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e present a framework for linking project activities to societal impacts of climate change research. The framework includes five types of impact (instrumental, conceptual, capacity-building, connectivity, and socio-environmental) that can be used to evaluate how co-production contributes to change. The first four categories can be measured at shorter timescales and serve as indicators of likely longer-term, larger-scale impacts (e.g. increased climate resilience). In addition, the authors stress the importance of recognising contribution to an impact (as one of many factors) in addition to direct attribution. Similarly, Karcher et al.\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e emphasise the need to capture both tangible outputs and intangible outcomes. Through a systematic scoping review, the authors reveal a mismatch between the ambitious goals of knowledge exchange processes, such as policy impact and societal transformation, and the more modest outcomes that are reported, such as improved communication or usability of knowledge. They argue for better alignment between intended outcomes and evaluation metrics, and for greater attention to social learning and process quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe main aim of the CPK process employed in the Vestland project that this study focuses on was to ensure usability of the CCA indicator set for all Norwegian municipalities. This most closely aligns with Bandola-Gill et al.\u0026rsquo;s\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e meaning of boundary management. The theory of change underpinning the design of our conceptual framework for the CPK processes was informed by a combination of Bremer and Meisch\u0026rsquo;s\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e iterative interaction lens \u0026ndash; involvement of the end-users will result in more useful indicators, and institutional lens \u0026ndash; stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration between and within municipalities will increase their capacity for CCA action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the conceptual framework underpinning the CPK process in the Vestland project. It moves from inputs through a cyclical interactive process between the researchers and the practitioners (i.e. municipalities), to concrete outputs, intangible outcomes, and long-term impacts. The cyclical process is characterised by autonomous \u0026lsquo;homework\u0026rsquo; assignments for the municipalities (denoted by \u0026lsquo;H\u0026rsquo; in the framework) in preparation for joint workshops (\u0026lsquo;W\u0026rsquo;), after which the indicator set is revised by the researchers (\u0026lsquo;R\u0026rsquo;). Each cycle addresses a different aspect of the indicator set\u0026rsquo;s usability: relevance for municipalities with different characteristics, perceived quality of the indicators, data availability for calculating the indicators, and operationalising the indicators within municipal systems. A comprehensive timeline of these essential activities is presented in the Methods section.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs encouraged by Brix et al.\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e, Karcher et al.\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e and Meadow and Owen\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the framework distinguishes between outputs and outcomes expected to be achieved during or shortly after the project and long-term structural impacts that the project contributes to. In addition to a revised indicator set (\u0026lsquo;Indicator set V\u0026rsquo;), the expected outputs of the project emphasise internal communications in the form of meeting minutes and newsletters (\u0026lsquo;Meeting minutes\u0026rsquo;) and external communications through reports, popular science articles, and academic journal articles (\u0026lsquo;Publications\u0026rsquo;). The fourth output, a web-based indicator tool, addresses the usability of the indicator set in very practical terms by improving access and user-friendliness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the outputs most closely align with the iterative interaction lens, the expected outcomes place more emphasis on the institutional lens by addressing collaboration, knowledge exchange, and anchoring of CCA in the participating municipalities, in addition to usable indicators. Finally, the impacts broaden the scope from the participating municipalities to all municipalities in Norway. The first impact of climate resilient municipalities has a long time horizon, while the latter three are expected to be evident earlier and contribute to the climate resilience impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe success of the CPK approach employed in the Vestland project is assessed here using a set of qualitative and quantitative metrics that address both the process itself and the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR42 CR43\" citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The metrics are derived from analysis of the evolution of the indicator set, a post-project survey of the participants, a document analysis of municipal plans conducted prior to and following the project, meeting minutes from the workshops, and personal reflections from the involved researchers. The metrics are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and described more in the Methods section. We explore the factors that contribute to or hinder productive transdisciplinary knowledge creation on CCA with municipalities in Norway, providing insights into significant barriers that must be addressed to achieve successful CPK with local authorities. This study addresses the implementation gap\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and the findings can be utilised by researchers and practitioners to unlock the potential towards a more proactive approach to CCA in medium and small municipalities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although this study is focused on Norway, the findings are transferable to most small and medium-sized municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next section presents the results of the CPK process evaluation, elaborating on the achievements, failures and challenges faced in the project in relation to the expected outcomes as described in the conceptual framework. This is followed by a Discussion section, in which we discuss the implications of our findings for use of CPK in the context of CCA and co-production processes involving small to medium-sized local authorities. Finally, the Methods section provides more detail on the activities in the Vestland project, as well as the methodological underpinnings of the evaluation metrics.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation of a CPK process requires reflection on both the process and the outcomes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR42\" citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In this section we present the results of our evaluation metrics and discuss the successes, challenges and failures of the CPK process in the Vestland project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides an overview of the metrics employed to assess the project's process and the four outcomes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e): \u0026lsquo;usable and relevant indicators\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;cross-sectoral collaboration\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;anchoring of CCA\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;intermunicipal knowledge exchange\u0026rsquo;. Further details on the metrics can be found in the Methods section. Comments given in the evaluation survey are interwoven throughout this section as supporting evidence and examples of the municipalities\u0026rsquo; perceptions and reflections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMetrics for each outcome category. Metrics not derived from the survey are indicated with an asterisk (*).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMetric\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTimeframe\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcess\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerception of project goal achievement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvolved departments per municipality (in workshops)*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoor continuity and breadth of involvement. Only 2 people participated in all WS. 2 municipalities had reps only 1 WS, only 4 municipalities had reps in all WS. 5 municipalities had more than 1 rep in at least 1 WS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of communication with research group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of physical workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of digital workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of homework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSufficient time devoted to project\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoor. Municipalities struggled to fulfil the required in-kind (time) contributions for the research project agreed upon at the start.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# additional communications between researchers and practitioners\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 newsletters, 8 interviews on economic indicators, 3 meetings with municipal spatial planners on risk indicators, 6 steering committee meetings with memo, Teams channel established, regular email reminders of homework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsable and relevant climate change adaptation indicators\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# process indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom 17 to 22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# risk indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom 0 to 5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# output indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom 11 to 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# outcome indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom 23 to 5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e% Municipalities that expect to use the indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for large municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for medium-sized municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e64%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for small municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with high maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with low maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with different types of climate risks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIncreased cross-departmental collaboration in the municipality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of internal collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in working methods and collaboration in the municipality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollaboration on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased collaboration internally\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnchoring of climate change adaptation in the municipality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# plans that mention CCA*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10 plans developed/updated since project start, 3 updates planned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased access to relevant CCA information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSet V shared with participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWeb-based tool prototype deployed, launch webinar attended by 130\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew knowledge and competence on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical anchoring of CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew routines in planning on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescription of responsibilities and tasks on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntermunicipal knowledge exchange\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# interaction with other relevant projects and/or initiatives*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# presentations in relevant fora outside the project*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# popular and scientific publications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of collaboration with others in the workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with other municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with County Authority\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with researchers and consultants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcess\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the municipalities were positive about the CPK approach employed in the Vestland project. However, two main challenges emerged from the evaluation: municipal resource allocation and establishing effective modes of interaction. These are addressed in more detail below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany municipalities struggled to dedicate sufficient resources to the project, as illustrated by one municipality\u0026rsquo;s comment \u0026ldquo;the project is very good, but the effort from our municipality [was] meagre\u0026rdquo;. This highlights the importance of CPK participants being able (and willing) to commit and engage in the CPK process for them to reap the expected benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe feedback received from the municipalities point to several possible explanations for the lack of resources or engagement in the project. Size is likely an important factor (\u0026ldquo;we have not had the capacity to include many people from the municipality in this\u0026rdquo;). This is an important but difficult problem to tackle, as the very lack of resources that make it difficult for small municipalities to participate also mean that they arguably have the most to gain from taking part in a project like this, both in terms of increased knowledge and capacity as well as network building\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, participation ensures that the views and challenges of these types of municipalities are also represented in the CPK outputs. Lack of money and time have been shown to be major factors in determining the success of science-policy interfaces, including stakeholder participation and building trust\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother recurring theme that may have contributed to the limited resources made available for the CPK process is a lack of experience with research projects, combined with unclear expectations of the municipalities. In response to the question \u0026ldquo;what are the most important lessons you have taken from this project?\u0026rdquo;, one project participant answered, \u0026ldquo;set up an internal working group before we say yes to joining an R\u0026amp;D project\u0026rdquo;. Another reflected that \u0026ldquo;we could have anchored [the project] better in our municipality. We should have had an internal start-up meeting to distribute roles and responsibilities. It is a big setback for us that no technical or planning resources have participated\u0026rdquo;. This comment illustrates the need for not just sufficient, but also the correct resources. Identifying the right people within the municipalities is challenging, even for the municipality's own employees. In addition, many municipalities experience a high turnover, making it difficult to get an overview of how responsibilities are distributed among departments and individuals within those departments. The CPK process in this project likewise suffered from high turnover in participants from the municipalities as a result, which hindered continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe co-production format in the Vestland project was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The decision to hold mostly digital workshops was largely informed by the pandemic-related restrictions, and the frequency of contact was reduced due to such restrictions. This negatively impacted the grounding of the project, the sense of cohesion among project partners, and the effectiveness of communication between researchers and the partner municipalities. This is reflected in the metrics where there was a clear preference for the physical workshops (69%) over the digital ones (17%). More physical gatherings, especially at the start of the project, could have helped anchor the project better and would have led to better understanding of expectations, roles, and responsibilities in the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany municipalities indicated there should have been more frequent contact. As one municipality responded, \u0026ldquo;there were often long breaks between the tasks and the municipality often \u0026lsquo;forgot\u0026rsquo; to work on [CCA] and indicators [\u0026hellip;] because of other tasks that had to be done\u0026rdquo;. This suggests that the unidirectional forms of communication, like the newsletter and homework reminders, were not perceived as equally engaging or \u0026lsquo;valid\u0026rsquo; as the multilateral forms of contact (e.g. workshops). This issue was likely more pronounced for municipalities that have little experience with CCA, since they often do not know where to start and require more guidance. This was also the case for the homework, which was perceived by some as too difficult (\u0026ldquo;some of the homework was very difficult to answer... Perhaps there could have been \u0026lsquo;instructions for use\u0026rsquo; for retrieving e.g. KOSTRA numbers?\u0026rdquo;) or too much (\u0026ldquo;the homework could perhaps have been divided into smaller parts - not too little, but also not too much, as was the case at times in this project\u0026rdquo;). This highlights the need for receiver-adjusted communication as a key factor for learning from research \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor an effective CPK process, communication channels must thus not only be well-established, but there must also be a mutual sense of approachability between the researchers and the other participants. The Vestland project was not particularly successful in this aspect; the municipalities rarely reached out to the researchers for support despite the difficulties they were experiencing with the homework. Adjusting the project by establishing more frequent steering committee meetings, a Teams channel and regular reminder emails with encouragement to ask for help, in addition to the newsletters, did not improve the communication between the municipalities and the researchers. As feedback loops are essential to CPK processes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e stronger focus on engagement and familiarity at the start of the project would likely have lowered the threshold for reaching out. The start-up meeting per municipality that was suggested by one of the participants may be a good approach, and a representative from the research group should participate to ensure anchoring early in the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUsable and relevant indicators\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first expected outcome of the project was more usable and relevant CCA indicators for all Norwegian municipalities. This was evaluated through a thorough assessment of how the indicators evolved in each cycle of the CPK process, as well as the municipalities\u0026rsquo; perceptions. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e provides a visual representation of how the indicator set evolved over the three CPK cycles. A detailed overview of the assessment conducted is provided in the Supplementary Data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe largest change in the composition of Set V occurred in the first revision. This revision was based on discussions in Workshop #1 on the relevance of the indicators to municipalities with different characteristics, an independent quality assessment of the indicators by the researchers, and integration of the recommendations that came out of a tangential project with only Trondheim municipality. With a group consisting of employees from several municipal units covering urban planning, climate and environment, building applications, municipal engineering, and municipal real estate, this project aimed to delve deeper into the usefulness of the indicators by applying them to Trondheim. Compared to other Norwegian municipalities, Trondheim municipality is relatively experienced with CCA. This project thus provided a \u0026lsquo;conservative\u0026rsquo; check of the indicators\u0026rsquo; usefulness; if Trondheim encountered difficulties with any indicator, less experienced municipalities would likely also struggle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis first revision led to a significant reduction in the number of indicators, particularly outcome indicators. These are notoriously the most difficult categories of indicators to formulate and measure, which makes them prone to criticism in terms of relevance and usability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Most of the deleted indicators were removed because Trondheim municipality had found them to be irrelevant or too difficult to use, for example because data was not readily available. Another significant change was the designation of risk indicators. Several indicators in Set O already directly addressed climate but were classified as outcome indicators. Creating a separate risk indicator category served to highlight the importance of climate risk assessment as part of municipal CCA efforts. It is mandatory for municipalities to carry out an overall RVA, and additional ones for new developments. This includes climate risk, but also many other risks, such as terrorist attacks and disease outbreaks. The climate risk section is therefore often very general, and it is more common for municipalities to prepare a qualitative risk matrix based on a traffic light system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the second and third revisions (V2 and V3), the number of output and outcome indicators further declined, while the number of process indicators increased. The latter tend to be binary indicators or only require a subjective assessment (e.g. low/medium/high). The municipalities\u0026rsquo; quality assessment in Workshop #2 uncovered issues such as a lack of data, unclear definitions, and variable relevance of the indicators for different types of municipalities. Indicators with existing and known data sources and an established method for valuation were more likely to be kept. Many indicators were also rephrased to improve clarity. In Workshop #3 the discussions were based on the municipalities\u0026rsquo; hands-on experience attempting to collect data and calculate some of the indicators. This resulted in more technically oriented discussions on e.g. potential biases or errors in the available datasets, and highlighted differences in the level and quality of data collection among the municipalities. These inputs did not result in significant changes in the indicators themselves but provided valuable input for the supporting fact sheets that describe the purpose of each indicator, how to collect the required data, and how to calculate the value. These indicator fact sheets can be found in the web-based tool (see Data availability).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe tendency away from quantitative (mostly output and outcome) indicators and towards qualitative (process) indicators reflects a tension between designing indicators that accurately track CCA and those that do not require significant additional effort. The tension between accuracy and efficiency manifested itself in several contradictions during the CPK process. Even though qualitative indicators were consistently favoured, a recurring criticism was that an indicator was subjective. This was mostly framed as making it difficult to compare results between municipalities. The question of whether the indicators should be comparable between municipalities or whether it is more valuable to track relative changes within each municipality has implications for the units in which indicators are measured, the baselines used, and how the results should be collected (e.g. locally or in a central database). The participating municipalities had differing opinions on this issue, likely exacerbated by a lack of clarity on CCA requirements and responsibilities at the national level\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While we did not achieve full consensus on the issue during the project, the discussions resulted in the inclusion of suggested standardised approaches, e.g. a suggested baseline, in the fact sheets, and the development of a GIS model in collaboration with GIS experts from two of the participating municipalities to standardise the calculation method for the risk indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother contradiction lay in the size of the indicator set. While many municipalities worried that the set was too extensive and complex, they also frequently suggested adding new indicators or splitting existing ones. The heterogeneity in size, geography, risk profile, municipal resources and expertise among the participating municipalities led to several of the more advanced indicators being retained despite being currently difficult or time-consuming for most municipalities to measure. This ensures that the indicator set is also relevant for the more advanced municipalities and creates ambition for progress in the less mature ones. The metrics show that by the end of the project, only 40% of the municipalities expected to use the indicators going forward, and the indicator set was still perceived to be most relevant for large municipalities and those with existing CCA expertise. This is likely closely linked to the resource constraints above and not solely a reflection on the value of the indicators themselves. Many municipalities already feel overstretched, making CCA yet another burden\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As one commented, \u0026ldquo;the indicators that require additional work for the municipalities to calculate must be particularly relevant for [us to use them]\u0026rdquo;. Another expressed concern over the impact of the CCA indicators on their other municipal duties: \u0026ldquo;If it is too extensive and too much work, it will delay the planning processes\u0026rdquo;. The activities in this CPK process focused on individual indicators and insufficiently addressed the complete set to comprehensively address this contradiction together with the municipalities. While the researchers strove to find a balance between sufficient detail and manageable length of the set, we could have benefited from a targeted evaluation session on this with the municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn interesting insight from the discussions with the municipalities was that the indicator set could be useful in multiple ways: in addition to being a tool for CCA monitoring, there was an emergent desire for the indicator set to function as a tool for political pressure. This was particularly visible in the group discussions on more advanced indicators. The issue of resource constraints for smaller municipalities was very prominent, but in several cases, the potential for sending a political message with an indicator trumped their low direct usefulness. For example, the indicator \u0026ldquo;What proportion of confirmed investment projects this year have shown and assessed the consequences of future climate change?\u0026rdquo; requires a manual review of documents, which is very time-consuming. However, it shows whether the municipality considers climate change in its investments \u0026ndash; an important measure for political anchoring of CCA. The indicator was initially deleted in Set V1 for being too difficult to monitor but was added back into Set V2 after several municipalities argued for its value as an aspirational target. Another example was the indicator \u0026ldquo;How many person-years are formally set aside for coordinating climate change adaptation work?\u0026rdquo;. Despite acknowledging that it can be difficult for small municipalities to appoint a dedicated CCA coordinator, it was decided to keep the indicator for its ability to apply political pressure to make resources available for this.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCross-departmental collaboration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second expected outcome of the Vestland project addresses the need for a multi-disciplinary approach in CCA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, including within municipalities. This was evaluated through the participating municipalities\u0026rsquo; perception of cross-departmental collaboration during and after the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe metric \u0026ldquo;perceived effectiveness of internal collaboration\u0026rdquo; scored 57% indicating that most of the municipalities experienced improved collaboration between departments. As one put it, \u0026ldquo;I had expected that we would get better interdisciplinary cooperation internally on climate change adaptation, and we have achieved that\u0026rdquo;. The internal collaboration seemed to have been sparked mostly by the homework: \u0026ldquo;We have worked across departments (planning, water management and technical) for the homework. It has been useful, in any case for me. I hope this will continue after the end of the project\u0026rdquo;. The preparatory homework for each workshop intentionally adopted a broad interdisciplinary perspective to foster internal multi-disciplinary discussions in advance of the workshop. Therefore, it is encouraging that this was acknowledged by several of the municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, when we look at the metric \u0026ldquo;change in working methods and collaboration in the municipality\u0026rdquo; (29%), the results are far less positive. It appears that \u003cem\u003eawareness\u003c/em\u003e has increased regarding the need for an interdisciplinary approach at CCA and that this has been attempted in connection with the homework, but that this has not yet led to a significant change. The future-oriented metrics \u0026ldquo;collaboration on CCA\u0026rdquo; (33%) and \u0026ldquo;increased collaboration internally\u0026rdquo; (47%) are slightly more optimistic, suggesting that the more informal concept of \u0026lsquo;collaboration\u0026rsquo; feels more achievable to the municipalities than structural and institutionalised improvements in the way the departments operate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnchoring of CCA\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third expected outcome, anchoring of CCA in the municipalities, is evaluated in terms of production and accessibility of CCA knowledge as well as the official integration of CCA into municipal processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA clear benefit of the projects was improved competence and understanding of CCA among the participating municipalities, how to measure it using indicators, and \u0026ldquo;that we must consider climate change in all types of activities\u0026rdquo;. However, at the end of the project, no significant improvement in CCA anchoring was reported by the municipalities in the form of new planning routines (27%), CCA task descriptions (13%) or political anchoring (0%). Increased knowledge thus did not directly lead to increased use of this knowledge, and there was no direct correlation between acceptance of the knowledge and acceptance of the indicators that are based on this knowledge, similar to findings by Wassen et al\u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn important aspect contributing to this lack of knowledge implementation and indicator acceptance was of a practical nature; during the workshops, it became clear that some participants were unsure of how to integrate CCA in the existing municipal structures. Factors such as seniority, affiliation to a specific unit, and position of the different municipal employees taking part in the project might have influenced their perceptions and whether they felt enabled or motivated to initiate structural changes. There was a clear demand for more practical support in tracking the indicators (e.g. through the web-based tool) and calculating their value (e.g. through factsheets that explain the indicator\u0026rsquo;s purpose, data sources, and calculation steps). This indicates that while the projects did result in \u0026ldquo;less conventional outcomes such as building new understandings, relationships and social networks [that] can pave the way for larger-scale and longer-term changes\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e, there is value in using the CPK process to at least pave the way for the more concrete, technical solutions to speed up the implementation of the developed solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of anchoring CCA through municipal documents, some progress could be seen. The initial review of planning documents in 2022 revealed that planning in smaller municipalities generally adheres to minimum legislative requirements. More recent plans tend to be significantly more aligned with climate change considerations and projections. The size of the municipality and the availability of skilled personnel to work on climate-related issues play a crucial role in determining whether the planning framework is up-to-date and whether climate adaptation efforts are well-coordinated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince the initial mapping, several municipalities have updated their plans, carried out new overall RVAs, prepared thematic plans that deal with CCA, or have announced ambitions to include CCA in their municipal plans. Only three out of the ten participating municipalities had not updated or added any plans with relevance for CCA. However, there is a significant lag between ambition, preparation and final acceptance of municipal plans; for example, Trondheim\u0026rsquo;s municipal plan for 2022\u0026ndash;2034 was not formally adopted until 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe low values on many of the anchoring metrics, as well as the metric on working methods and collaboration in the municipality discussed in the previous section, suggest that anchoring of CCA in the municipality was perhaps too ambitious as an outcome for the three-year project timeframe. Similar experiences have been observed in the context of CCA initiatives within municipalities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The integration of CCA in internal municipal systems and political expressions is likely an impact of this project that will take more time to emerge\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and should ideally be tracked over the coming years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntermunicipal knowledge exchange\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fourth expected outcome of the project addresses the importance of communication and collaboration between different entities. This was measured by the number of relevant cross-entity interactions the project had and to what extent the municipalities expected better collaboration with others as a result of their experiences in the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Vestland project was reasonably successful in engaging with other relevant initiatives, including joint workshops and presentations in municipal CCA-related events. These efforts served to stimulate both mutual learning and network building beyond the project consortium. The publication of (popular) scientific articles served to disseminate the project findings to the wider community of practitioners and researchers. While it is difficult to translate these metric numbers into concrete impact, there have been several new joint initiatives with projects we engaged with during the Vestland project (e.g. the online platform that the web-based tool is now part of, see Data availability). This indicates that these interactions were indeed successful.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe municipalities were most optimistic about their working relationship with the County Authority (40%). The same optimism was not present regarding cooperation with other municipalities, both during the project (8%) and beyond (0%). This is unfortunate, as the difficulty in prioritising CCA for small municipalities means that cooperation and networks are essential\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The design of the CPK activities could have encouraged this more explicitly within the project, for example through cross-municipal homework assignments, creating a \u0026lsquo;mentor\u0026rsquo; system where more advanced municipalities are matched with less experienced ones, and allocating more time for group discussions during the workshops. The partner municipalities from Vestland already share certain resources, such as geologists, GIS experts and public procurement expertise. These existing collaborations could have been leveraged to extend cooperation to more aspects of CCA, as well as serving as inspiration for municipalities that did not yet have such sharing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFrom outcome to impact\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is not realistic so shortly after the project end to evaluate its contribution to the four expected longer-term impacts (more climate resilient municipalities; more efficient climate change adaptation monitoring, reporting, and evaluation; enhanced climate change adaptation data availability and quality; and more holistic municipal responses to climate change, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, we argue that a move in the right direction is tangible for at least the latter three impacts. The project contributed to more effective MRE processes in the municipalities by developing and revising a set of indicators, describing these, and providing examples of how they should be assessed and used. Furthermore, the web-based tool, which is freely available and provided in Norwegian to further ease use and uptake, lays the groundwork for improved CCA data availability and quality. Finally, the project has contributed to a more holistic response to CCA by focusing on an interdisciplinary approach to CCA in the municipalities that participated in the project. This has led to increased internal collaboration, but there is still a lack of anchoring and lasting change in working methods and processes. As discussed above, the anchoring of CCA may have been better suited as an impact rather than an outcome due to the lag between knowledge acquisition and implementation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e as well as bureaucratic obstacles to change in municipal processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to evaluate the success of engaging in CPK with Norwegian municipalities to develop a set of usable and relevant CCA indicators. The CPK approach and its assessment described in this paper provide insights on challenges and benefits of CPK in CCA research projects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnchoring the project at the start is particularly crucial for small and medium-sized local authorities to ensure they understand what it means to take part in a CPK process. The Vestland project specifically targeted municipalities of various sizes, with the aim of ensuring representation of a broad spectrum of needs in the resulting CCA indicator set. The issue of representation and equality is an integral part of the CPK methodology\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and in our case arguably led to more relevant and usable indicators (see Section 2.2). However, we struggled to get many of the municipalities to sufficiently engage in the project. This was a combination of unclear expectations of their role in the project, a lack of human resource availability and high turnover in employees, and low levels of expertise on CCA. Municipalities need to be willing and able to commit to active and dedicated participation throughout the project period to be able to benefit. In addition, the \u003cem\u003eright\u003c/em\u003e people should be involved. Based on the experiences in the Vestland project, continuity is impactful enough to warrant its own evaluation metric (see the Results section). When involving institutions in CPK, it should be recognised that it is still individuals who participate in the actual process. The continued engagement at individual level is then arguably as important as engagement at institutional level, especially when the institution is represented by a single person in the project. A comprehensive mapping of relevant municipal stakeholders at the start of the CPK process, carried out by the municipalities and the researchers, could be an effective strategy to identify the most useful participants within an organisation. Such an activity can also serve to build trust and understanding between the researchers and the municipality, which will encourage more open communication and mutual exchange of information throughout the project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo increase accessibility to CPK for resource-strapped stakeholders, the project activities should be as low-threshold as possible in e.g. cost and time. Moving towards online events is a promising avenue, but as our evaluation showed, digital workshops are not necessarily an effective solution unless very well planned and executed to stimulate engagement and a sense of community among the participants. Although research has shown that virtual workshops can be effective\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the \u0026lsquo;soft\u0026rsquo; aspects such as interaction between participants and network building have been found to be most challenging to achieve successfully in online settings\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. If we want to successfully engage with stakeholder groups with limited resources, researchers need to be more creative in utilising the increasing array of digital tools available to design effective non-physical CPK activities (see Buelo et al.\u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e for an example of using Facebook).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe varying degrees of CCA expertise among the Vestland project participants was beneficial, but it could have been exploited more effectively. The most significant revision (from Set O to V1, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) was mostly based on inputs from the largest (and most experienced) municipality, Trondheim, which had gone through the indicators in depth in an additional CPK process. Although this was valuable input to the project, the transferability of Trondheim\u0026rsquo;s experiences to the smaller and less experienced municipalities is limited. Ideally, all municipalities would go through a similar intensive CPK process from their individual starting point, but this is clearly unrealistic given the resource constraints discussed above. Introducing a \u0026lsquo;mentor\u0026rsquo; system by pairing inexperienced participants with their more advanced peers during the CPK process could stimulate more targeted discussions on the differences and similarities between their contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is often the case that attention to a certain cause recedes once external funding and the supporting framework, in this case access to scientific capacity, workshops and project meetings, disappear\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As one participant stated, \u0026ldquo;[these types of] projects give managers time to prioritise cooperation and the acquisition of specialist knowledge by those under them, but unfortunately this can quickly pass when the project is over\u0026rdquo;. Municipalities would benefit from an extended timeframe and funding, where they can receive support for long-term strategic anchoring of the results into their organisational structures after the project finishes. This would enhance the impact of these kinds of research projects, speed up the adaptation process and increase the long-term commitment of municipalities. A possible pathway for this to use CPK processes to stimulate the joining of existing (regional, national, or international) networks or the creation of new ones. In 2017, Tr\u0026oslash;ndelag county created a network to increase municipal cooperation and knowledge sharing and protect buildings and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. The network includes a wide range of partners including research organisations, national government bodies such as the Norwegian Environment Agency, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate and Norwegian Mapping Authority, and private sector organisations. A 2021 review of the network\u0026rsquo;s impact concluded that the breadth of partners and the expertise they bring in was a significant contributor to the network\u0026rsquo;s success and resulted in a wide range of joint activities from research projects and courses to workshops and applications for CCA measure implementation funds\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Research of national\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and international networks such as the Covenant of Mayors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e has shown that multilevel structures and sufficient financial support for smaller local authorities are vital in maximising the contribution of small local authorities to climate targets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperiences from the Vestland project have shown that collaborative actions can stimulate CCA awareness and action. Although a universal set of CCA indicators can contribute speeding up adaptation MRE in municipalities as well as ensuring some level of comparability between municipalities, engaging all municipalities in some form of CPK to develop CCA capacities may lead to more profound and sustainable adaptive behaviour changes. Direct and intensive engagement with the indicators enhances understanding of the challenges and necessity of adaptation, increases the relevance of the indicators, and facilitates anchoring in the municipal systems. Our findings suggest that including the implementation of CPK processes and long-term transdisciplinary collaboration in national policies and funding mechanisms can be effective in driving local CCA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther research is needed on how to ensure a sustainable continuation of the municipal adaptation tracking process in small and medium municipalities beyond short-term project lifetimes. Municipalities that took part in CPK processes such as the ones described here should be followed up to assess the long-term success of the CPK process, in terms of adaptive capacity, continued knowledge creation, and cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration. It would be valuable to explore the expression of future CPK processes changes as the municipalities\u0026rsquo; maturity on CCA increases. It would also be interesting to assess how characteristics such as economic factors, dominant industries, climate vulnerabilities, and where the municipal council lies on the political spectrum, influences attitudes towards CCA as well as the CPK process in Norway.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore knowledge on how to achieve successful research collaboration with small municipalities is needed. Further research should investigate how CPK processes can help municipalities to make progress in CCA within the resource constraints they face.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCo-production of knowledge activities\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Vestland project started with the initial CCA indicator set developed in 2021, referred to as \u003cem\u003eSet O\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e. The revised versions generated throughout the CPK cycles are referred to as \u003cem\u003eSet V\u003c/em\u003e and numbered according to the iteration. There are three iterations in total.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTimeline and key activities in Vestland project. Participant numbers are excluding the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eActivities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAug 2021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject start-up\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJan 2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomework #1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshop #1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(online)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHomework\u003c/b\u003e: review Set O.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e: 14\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAim\u003c/b\u003e: assess relevance of Set O for municipalities with different characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFormat\u003c/b\u003e: 2 group discussions on indicator subsets (55 min) and economic indicators (40 min). First session: evaluate subset of indicators on relevance and suitability. Second session: discuss economic indicators used in the municipalities, which ones are preferred/needed, data availability and quality. Each session was followed by plenary discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eApr 2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews on economic indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 interviews with 1\u0026ndash;5 municipality representatives (total 16 individuals) with finance and/or CCA responsibilities. Interview guide was sent 1 week prior. All interviews were semi-structured. Interviews focused on the current use of economic indicators, preferences/need for economic CCA indicators that can reveal implementation costs and direct/indirect economic risk of inaction, and how to identify CCA efforts in the municipal budgets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDec 2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomework #2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshop #2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(online)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHomework\u003c/b\u003e: score Set V1 indicators against quality criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e: 13\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAim\u003c/b\u003e: assess quality of Set V1 (relevance, data availability, efficiency/time consumption, validity).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFormat\u003c/b\u003e: presentation from Trondheim project. 1 group discussion. Participants were divided into three groups to discuss a subset of Set V1 (55 min), followed by plenary discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeb 2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomework #3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHomework\u003c/b\u003e: calculate value of at least 2 indicators per type (process, risk, output, outcome).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMar 2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshop #3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(online)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e: 11\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAim\u003c/b\u003e: test data availability and usability of Set V2 indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFormat\u003c/b\u003e: presentation of results from municipalities, followed by open discussion on calculation methods, data availability, ambiguity in the indicators, responsibility distribution for tracking the indicators, and other experiences gained from homework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOct 2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomework #4\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshop #4\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(physical)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHomework\u003c/b\u003e: find indicator data from publicly available sources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e: 14\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAim\u003c/b\u003e: gain experience with using Set V3, give input on the web-based indicator tool.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFormat\u003c/b\u003e: presentation from another co-creation project on indicator-based sustainability assessment of CCA measures for municipalities. Presentation on web-based indicator tool. Group discussion on indicators followed by plenary discussion. Survey opened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNov 2023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey to evaluate the CPK process closed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOct 2024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject closing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMetrics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe developed a set of metrics to evaluate the CPK process and to what extent the project achieved its expected outcomes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The metrics are calculated using a mixed-method approach\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e including analysis of the evolution of the indicator set, a post-project survey of the participants, a document analysis of municipal plans conducted prior to and after the project, meeting minutes from the workshops, and personal reflections from the involved researchers. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the methods and data sources that each metric is calculated from.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost metrics are based on the post-project survey. This anonymous online survey was sent out to the project participants in October 2023 after Workshop #4. The survey was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sikt.no/en/home\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sikt.no/en/home\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). In total, 15 responses were received, representing 60% of the persons participating in one or more of the four workshops. During the project period, the participating municipalities experienced a high staff turnover, which is one of the reasons for the reduced response rate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey consisted of questions with a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from \u0026lsquo;To a very small extent\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;To a very large extent\u0026rsquo;), binary (yes/no) questions with possibility to comment, and open questions. The survey questions are available in Supplementary Materials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the binary survey questions, the metric value is calculated as the percentage of respondents that answered \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo;; for those with a Likert scale, the value is the percentage of respondents that answered \u0026ldquo;to a large extent\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;to a very large extent\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the participating municipalities, the most important municipal plan types that are common to all municipalities were evaluated for reference to climate risk and CCA at the beginning and end of the project. This applies to the municipal plan's area section and overall RVA. We also mapped new RVAs related to area and zoning plans and new relevant thematic plans for the period after the initial mapping and searched for updated flood and land slide hazard maps from The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). In addition, we performed a search with the keywords \u0026ldquo;climate risk\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;climate vulnerability\u0026rdquo; on the municipalities' websites. The assessment of the mapping is qualitative, but the mapping was documented in an Excel spreadsheet.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter each workshop, the researchers revised the indicators based on the discussions and feedback from the municipalities. This included rephrasing, removing, splitting, or merging indicators, reordering them, and adding new ones. The changes were recorded in an Excel sheet along with the quality scoring and comments from both the researchers and the municipalities. The full overview of indicators and revisions is available in the Supplementary Data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMetrics and the methods/data source used to measure them. Timeframe indicates whether the metric refers to the project period (\u0026lsquo;Project\u0026rsquo;) or expected impacts (\u0026lsquo;Expected\u0026rsquo;). For metrics based on the survey, the Source lists the relevant question. Metrics not based on the survey are indicated with an asterisk (*).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMetric\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTimeframe\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcess\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerception of project goal achievement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHave your expectations for the project been met?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvolved departments per municipality (in workshops)*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of communication with research group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; communication with research group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of physical workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; physical workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of digital workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; digital workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of homework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; homework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSufficient time devoted to project\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esurvey comments, personal reflections, meeting minutes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# additional communications between researchers and practitioners\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes, project group communications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsable and relevant climate change adaptation indicators\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# process indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Set O and Set V3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# risk indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Set O and Set V3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# output indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Set O and Set V3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# outcome indicators*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Set O and Set V3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e% Municipalities that expect to use the indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWill your municipality use the indicators in the work in CCA going forward?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for large municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; large municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for medium-sized municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; medium-sized municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for small municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; small municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with high maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; municipalities with high maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with low maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; municipalities with low maturity on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of indicators for municipalities with different types of climate risks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think [the indicator set] can be useful for other types of municipalities \u0026ndash; Different types of climate risks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIncreased cross-departmental collaboration in the municipality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of internal collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; internally\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in working methods and collaboration in the municipality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHas the project contributed to a change in methods of working and collaboration in the municipality?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollaboration on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s further work with CCA \u0026ndash; collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased collaboration internally\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality \u0026ndash; internally\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnchoring of climate change adaptation in the municipality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# plans that mention CCA*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocument review of municipal plans\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased access to relevant CCA information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes, project group communications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew knowledge and competence on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s further work with CCA \u0026ndash; new knowledge and competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical anchoring of CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s further work with CCA \u0026ndash;political anchoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew routines in planning on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s further work with CCA \u0026ndash; new routines in planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescription of responsibilities and tasks on CCA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn which areas and to what extend do you think participation in the project will be useful in terms of the municipality\u0026rsquo;s further work with CCA \u0026ndash;description of responsibilities and tasks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntermunicipal knowledge exchange\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# interaction with other relevant projects and/or initiatives*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes, project group communications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# presentations in relevant fora outside the project*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes, project group communications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e# popular and scientific publications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting minutes, project group communications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived effectiveness of collaboration with others in the workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProject\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think the collaboration form worked in the project \u0026ndash; collaboration with others in the workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with other municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality \u0026ndash; other municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with County Authority\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality \u0026ndash; County Authority\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecollaboration on CCA with researchers and consultants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent do you think participation in the project will contribute to collaboration on CCA in your municipality \u0026ndash; researchers and consultants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey questions are available in the Supplementary Materials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey data are not publicly available due to the small sample size which limits the anonymity of the respondents but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSet O, Set V, and the evolution of the indicator set from Set O to Set V is available in the Supplementary Data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe web-based indicator tool is publicly available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Note that some deviations in the indicators may be present due to further development of the tool since the end of the Vestland project.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e**LH** : Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization. **ESa** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. **KK** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft. **ID** : Methodology, Writing - Original Draft. **KG** : Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Supervision. **ESi** : Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eL.H, E.Sa., K.K., E.Si and K.G. disclose support for the research of this work from RFF Vestland (grant number 322875). L.H, El.S., K.K., Ed.S and I.D. disclose support for the research of this work from Norwegian Environment Agency. The authors would like to thank the project partners for their insights on the research and the manuscript. We would also like extend gratitude to Prof. Dr.-Ing. Birte Frommer, Luise Spieker, and the other participants in the Special Collection Writers Workshop for excellent discussions and feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey questions are available in the Supplementary Materials.The survey data are not publicly available due to the small sample size which limits the anonymity of the respondents but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Set O, Set V, and the evolution of the indicator set from Set O to Set V is available in the Supplementary Data.The web-based indicator tool is publicly available at [https://lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male/](https:/lhsintef.shinyapps.io/male) . Note that some deviations in the indicators may be present due to further development of the tool since the end of the Vestland project.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey, B. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: challenges and insights. \u003cem\u003eGlob. Chall.\u003c/em\u003e 3, (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetzold, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A global assessment of actors and their roles in climate change adaptation. \u003cem\u003eNat. Clim. Change\u003c/em\u003e 13, 1250\u0026ndash;1257 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers, N. J. L., Adams, V. M. \u0026amp; Byrne, J. A. Agenda-setting and policy leadership for municipal climate change adaptation. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 161, (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRylenius, T. W. \u0026amp; Hamza, M. The fragmentation of climate change adaptation \u0026ndash; the Sweden case. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ.\u003c/em\u003e 15, 497\u0026ndash;515 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNalau, J., Preston, B. L. \u0026amp; Maloney, M. C. Is adaptation a local responsibility? \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 48, 89\u0026ndash;98 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelseng, T. \u0026amp; Gjertsen, A. What drives sustainable climate change adaptation at the local level? Approaching three knowledge gaps. \u003cem\u003eSustain. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e (2024) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/sd.3043\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.3043\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh, R. K., Singh, A., Zander, K. K., Mathew, S. \u0026amp; Kumar, A. Measuring successful processes of knowledge co-production for managing climate change and associated environmental stressors: Adaptation policies and practices to support Indian farmers. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Manage.\u003c/em\u003e 282, 111679 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarcher, D. B., Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R. M., van Putten, I. E. \u0026amp; Reed, M. S. Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 125, 202\u0026ndash;218 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorstr\u0026ouml;m, A. V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. \u003cem\u003eNat. Sustain.\u003c/em\u003e 3, 182\u0026ndash;190 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026oslash;ydahl, E. \u003cem\u003eSentralitetsindeksen. Oppdatering med 2020-kommuner\u003c/em\u003e. (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Climate and Environment. \u003cem\u003eMeld. St. 26 (2022\u0026ndash;2023) A changing climate\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eunited for a climate-resilient society\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOffice of the Auditor General. \u003cem\u003eThe Office of the Auditor General\u0026rsquo;s Investigation into Government Authorities\u0026rsquo; Effort to Adapt Infrastructure and Built-up Areas to a Changing Climate\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/reports/en-2021-2022/document-3-6-2021-2022---investigation-into-government-authorities-effort-to-adapt-infrastructure-and-built-up-areas-to-a-changing-climate.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/reports/en-2021-2022/document-3-6-2021-2022---investigation-into-government-authorities-effort-to-adapt-infrastructure-and-built-up-areas-to-a-changing-climate.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlemetsen, M. \u0026amp; Dahl, M. S. \u003cem\u003eHvor Godt Er Norske Kommuner Rustet for Klimaendringer?\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2686544/Rapport%202020%2005%20web4.pdf?sequence=10\u0026amp;isAllowed=y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2686544/Rapport%202020%2005%20web4.pdf?sequence=10\u0026amp;isAllowed=y\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRusdal, T., Brendehaug, E. \u0026amp; Aall, C. \u003cem\u003eKartlegging Av Erfaringer Fra Arbeidet Med Klimatilpasning i Sm\u0026aring; Og Mellomstore Kommuner\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ks.no/globalassets/fagomrader/samfunnsutvikling/klima/RAPPORT-KLIMATILPASNING-statussmakommuner-EV-juni2019.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ks.no/globalassets/fagomrader/samfunnsutvikling/klima/RAPPORT-KLIMATILPASNING-statussmakommuner-EV-juni2019.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSkjeflo, S. W. \u0026amp; Romundstad, R. \u003cem\u003eHvor Langt Har Norske Kommuner Kommet i Klimatilpasningsarbeidet? Sp\u0026oslash;rreunders\u0026oslash;kelse Om Klimatilpasning V\u0026aring;ren 2023\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3096713/Rapport%2022%2007%20sisteversj-web.pdf?sequence=1\u0026amp;isAllowed=y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3096713/Rapport%2022%2007%20sisteversj-web.pdf?sequence=1\u0026amp;isAllowed=y\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission: Directorate-General for Climate Action \u003cem\u003eet al. Study on Adaptation Modelling\u003c/em\u003e - \u003cem\u003eComprehensive Desk Review\u003c/em\u003e - \u003cem\u003eClimate Adaptation Models and Tools\u003c/em\u003e. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarley, M., Horrocks, L., Hodgson, N. \u0026amp; van Minnen, J. \u003cem\u003eClimate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Indicators\u003c/em\u003e. 37 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoser, S. C. \u0026amp; Ekstrom, J. A. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 107, 22026\u0026ndash;22031 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRicciardi, G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Climate change adaptation cycle for pilot projects development in small municipalities: The northwestern Italian regions case study. \u003cem\u003eCity Environ. Interact.\u003c/em\u003e 17, 100097 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVallejo, L. \u003cem\u003eInsights from National Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation Systems\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/insights-from-national-adaptation-monitoring-and-evaluation-systems_da48ce17-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/insights-from-national-adaptation-monitoring-and-evaluation-systems_da48ce17-en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1787/da48ce17-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/da48ce17-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFord, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., Lesnikowski, A., Barrera, M. \u0026amp; Heymann, S. J. How to Track Adaptation to Climate Change: A Typology of Approaches for National-Level Application. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e 18, (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. \u003cem\u003eNorways Eighth National Communication\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilj\u0026oslash;direktoratet. Milj\u0026oslash;m\u0026aring;l 5.6 - Milj\u0026oslash;status - Norges klima- og milj\u0026oslash;m\u0026aring;l. \u003cem\u003eMilj\u0026oslash;status\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://miljostatus.miljodirektoratet.no/miljomal/klima/miljomal-5.6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://miljostatus.miljodirektoratet.no/miljomal/klima/miljomal-5.6\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoradapt. Norsk klimamonitor. \u003cem\u003eNorsk klimamonitor\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://klimamonitor.no\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://klimamonitor.no\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR\u0026oslash;d, J. K., Aall, C. \u0026amp; Selseng, T. Towards a holistic climate service: Addressing all four climate risk determinants. \u003cem\u003eClim. Serv.\u003c/em\u003e 38, 100558 (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR\u0026oslash;d, J. K., Selseng, T. \u0026amp; Aall, C. The geography of future climate risk [English version]. \u003cem\u003eNorsk klimamonitor\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://klimamonitor.no/analysar/the-geography-of-future-climate-risk\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://klimamonitor.no/analysar/the-geography-of-future-climate-risk\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSivertsen, E., Sandberg, E., Fjellheim, K., Solli, J. \u0026amp; Lilledal, S. \u003cem\u003eIndikatorer for M\u0026aring;ling Av Klimatilpasning Av Arealer, Bygninger Og Infrastruktur i Kommuner Anvisning Og Rammeverk\u003c/em\u003e. (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharifi, A. \u0026amp; Allam, Z. On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 49, 1536\u0026ndash;1555 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026auml;kinen, K. \u003cem\u003eet al. Indicators for Adaptation to Climate Change at National Level\u003c/em\u003e - \u003cem\u003eLessons from Emerging Practice in Europe\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/tp_3-2018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/tp_3-2018\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVincent, K. Development geography I: Co-production. \u003cem\u003eProg. Hum. Geogr.\u003c/em\u003e 46, 890\u0026ndash;897 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDi Iacovo, F., Moruzzo, R., Rossignoli, C. M. \u0026amp; Scarpellini, P. Measuring the effects of transdisciplinary research: The case of a social farming project. \u003cem\u003eFutures\u003c/em\u003e 75, 24\u0026ndash;35 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBremer, S. \u0026amp; Meisch, S. Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Clim. Change\u003c/em\u003e 8, e482 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolmes, A. \u0026amp; McEwen, L. How to Exchange Stories of Local Flood Resilience From Flood Rich Areas to the Flooded Areas of the Future. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e 14, 597\u0026ndash;613 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSword-Daniels, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards. \u003cem\u003eJ. Risk Res.\u003c/em\u003e 21, 290\u0026ndash;307 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVisconti, C. Co-production of knowledge for climate-resilient design and planning in Naples, Italy. \u003cem\u003eHabitat Int.\u003c/em\u003e 135, (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandola-Gill, J., Arthur, M. \u0026amp; Leng, R. I. What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. \u003cem\u003eEvid. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 19, 275\u0026ndash;298 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBremer, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClim. Serv.\u003c/em\u003e 13, 42\u0026ndash;50 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuccione, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation networks. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.\u003c/em\u003e 39, 147\u0026ndash;152 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Hel, S. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 61, 165\u0026ndash;175 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDilling, L. \u0026amp; Lemos, M. C. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. \u003cem\u003eGlob. Environ. Change\u003c/em\u003e 21, 680\u0026ndash;689 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVisman, E., Vincent, K., Steynor, A., Karani, I. \u0026amp; Mwangi, E. Defining metrics for monitoring and evaluating the impact of co-production in climate services. \u003cem\u003eClim. Serv.\u003c/em\u003e 26, 100297 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMansfield, L. Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Sport Policy\u003c/em\u003e 8, 713\u0026ndash;729 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrix, J., Krogstrup,Hanne Kathrine \u0026amp; and Mortensen, N. M. Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government. \u003cem\u003eLocal Gov. Stud.\u003c/em\u003e 46, 169\u0026ndash;185 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeadow, A. \u0026amp; Owen, G. \u003cem\u003ePlanning and Evaluating the Societal Impacts of Climate Change Research Projects: A Guidebook for Natural and Physical Scientists Looking to Make a Difference\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hdl.handle.net/10150/658313\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hdl.handle.net/10150/658313\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2458/10150.658313\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2458/10150.658313\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAall, C. \u0026amp; Groven, K. The Unpredictable Truth: A Proposed Road Map for a Reflect-Then-Act Approach to Climate Uncertainties and Lessons Learned from Norwegian Municipalities. \u003cem\u003eWeather Clim. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e 14, 337\u0026ndash;347 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBausch, T. \u0026amp; Koziol, K. New Policy Approaches for Increasing Response to Climate Change in Small Rural Municipalities. \u003cem\u003eSUSTAINABILITY\u003c/em\u003e 12, 1894 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWagner, N., Velander, S., Biber-Freudenberger, L. \u0026amp; Dietz, T. Effectiveness factors and impacts on policymaking of science-policy interfaces in the environmental sustainability context. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 140, 56\u0026ndash;67 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDjenontin, I. N. S. \u0026amp; Meadow, A. M. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Manage.\u003c/em\u003e 61, 885\u0026ndash;903 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez, R. J. How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 64, 171\u0026ndash;176 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMann, C. \u0026amp; Sch\u0026auml;fer, M. Developing sustainable water and land management options: reflections on a transdisciplinary research process. \u003cem\u003eSustain. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 13, 205\u0026ndash;217 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarley, M. \u0026amp; van Minnen, J. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment of Adaptation Indicators\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/etcacc_tp_2009_6_etcacc_tp_2009_6_adapt_ind-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/etcacc_tp_2009_6_etcacc_tp_2009_6_adapt_ind-1\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWassen, M. J., Runhaar, H., Barendregt, A. \u0026amp; Okruszko, T. Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Plan. B Plan. Des.\u003c/em\u003e 38, 338\u0026ndash;358 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHauge, \u0026Aring;. L., Hanssen, G. S. \u0026amp; Flyen, C. Multilevel networks for climate change adaptation \u0026ndash; what works? \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e 11, 215\u0026ndash;234 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Oliveira, M. G., Routley, M. \u0026amp; Phaal, R. The digitalisation of roadmapping workshops. \u003cem\u003eJ. Eng. Technol. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e 65, 101694 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMenary, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Going virtual: adapting in-person interactive focus groups to the online environment. \u003cem\u003eEmerald Open Res.\u003c/em\u003e 1, (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBecker, K., Ebbers, J. J. \u0026amp; Engel, Y. Going online: Peer entrepreneur networks in a startup accelerator before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eTechnovation\u003c/em\u003e 130, 102917 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTobin, C., Mavrommati, G. \u0026amp; Urban-Rich, J. Responding to Social Distancing in Conducting Stakeholder Workshops in COVID-19 Era. \u003cem\u003eSocieties\u003c/em\u003e 10, 98 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuelo, A., Kirk, A. \u0026amp; Jepson, R. A novel research method for workshops and co-production of interventions: using a secret Facebook group. \u003cem\u003ePilot Feasibility Stud.\u003c/em\u003e 6, 168 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eF\u0026uuml;nfgeld, H., Fila, D. \u0026amp; Dahlmann, H. Upscaling climate change adaptation in small- and medium-sized municipalities: current barriers and future potentials. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.\u003c/em\u003e 61, 101263 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrondheim kommune. \u003cem\u003eNettverk klimatilpasningTr\u0026oslash;ndelag\u003c/em\u003e - \u003cem\u003eStatus 2017\u0026ndash;2020\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.statsforvalteren.no/contentassets/544a13b9528e4097a2bd654f22add0d6/nettverk-klimatilpasning-trondelag---statusrapport-2017-2020.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.statsforvalteren.no/contentassets/544a13b9528e4097a2bd654f22add0d6/nettverk-klimatilpasning-trondelag---statusrapport-2017-2020.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelica, G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Multilevel governance of sustainable energy policies: The role of regions and provinces to support the participation of small local authorities in the Covenant of Mayors. \u003cem\u003eSustain. Cities Soc.\u003c/em\u003e 39, 729\u0026ndash;739 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-climate-action","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjclimataction","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Climate Action](https://www.nature.com/npjclimataction)","snPcode":"44168","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44168/3","title":"npj Climate Action","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCo-production of knowledge (CPK) enables wider inclusion of stakeholders in shaping research, contributing knowledge, and creating solutions. This study evaluates a co-production of knowledge process with ten small to medium-sized Norwegian municipalities aimed at developing a relevant and usable set of climate change adaptation indicators tailored to diverse municipal contexts. The effectiveness of the implemented CPK approach is assessed through a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics that evaluate both the process itself and the degree to which the anticipated outcomes were realized. Significant challenges emerged around municipal resource allocation, sustaining engagement, and effective communication\u0026mdash;especially in digital formats. Nonetheless, internal collaboration improved in many municipalities, and the project helped raise awareness and understanding of CCA. Recommendations for successful CPK with small local authorities include anchoring the CPK in the participating organisations, ensuring continuity, tailoring activities to resource constraints, fostering cross-participant mentorship, and supporting long-term network building.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Co-producing climate change adaptation indicators with small Norwegian municipalities","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-06 18:26:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5497789/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-18T13:59:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-17T23:54:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-20T16:00:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"228112518485065480759359891956075585017","date":"2025-12-04T15:31:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161911310849660763478416593721137677812","date":"2025-12-03T11:46:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-03T09:47:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-03T06:49:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Climate Action","date":"2025-11-25T07:20:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-climate-action","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjclimataction","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Climate Action](https://www.nature.com/npjclimataction)","snPcode":"44168","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44168/3","title":"npj Climate Action","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6c3c474c-dfb8-4960-937f-77b87e96f57e","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":63141060,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change adaptation"},{"id":63141061,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-11T16:39:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-06 18:26:43","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5497789","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5497789","identity":"rs-5497789","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}