Building user-driven climate adaptation products

Building user-driven climate adaptation products | 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 Analysis Building user-driven climate adaptation products Nabig Chaudhry, William Collins, David Anthoff, Andrew Jones This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Climate adaptation products have traditionally been developed using a supply-driven model reliant on available climate information, leading to usability gaps. To better meet user needs, the climate services field has recognized a need to shift towards a demand-driven model emphasizing co-production, that is, user-driven, scientifically informed products created through shared knowledge practices. However, co-production can be challenging, especially for researchers unfamiliar with the approach or for digital and software-based products with complex user needs. User-centered design, from the human-computer interaction field, offers a process that could complement co-production approaches to product development, yet its potential remains underexplored. Here we show how user-centered design can integrate into, and strengthen, co-production approaches for building user-driven climate adaptation products. Through a systematic review of co-production and user-centered design literature, we identify key processes, mechanisms, and best practices for both approaches. Our findings offer practical guidance for researchers and propose an integrated approach for developing climate adaptation products that are useful, usable, and used. Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Climate change Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Interdisciplinary studies Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Main text Climate change is reshaping societal and ecological systems, and with 2024 now the first full calendar year above 1.5°C since pre-industrial times, information that supports adaptation to climate risks is increasingly urgent 9-12 . This need has accelerated demand for climate services, products, and tools (“climate products”) that support climate-informed decisions 1, 3 . Despite the growth of climate products, many have fallen short of initial expectations 1, 13-15 . This partly reflects a one-directional, supply-driven model in which “developers” (often scientists and researchers) prioritize supplying better data and assume that more information will drive improved decision-making and action 1, 2, 15, 16 . Supply-driven climate products are scientifically driven but typically misaligned with user needs and decision requirements, limiting uptake and use 1, 2, 15, 17 . The “usability gap” describes the mismatch between supplied information and what “users” of climate products need 2, 4, 18 . The usability gap for climate products is exacerbated by fragmented product development across organizations and by diverse users and stakeholders with varying expertise and decision needs 1, 4, 19, 20 . Here, “stakeholders” are those who impact or are impacted by the decisions and processes relevant to a climate product, and they often, but not always, overlap with users 21 . Climate products that support adjustment to climate change (“climate adaptation products”) face added challenges in supporting user understanding and communicating uncertainty in forward-looking climate data 8, 22 . Consistent with these challenges, prior research suggests that climate adaptation products often fall short in supporting adaptation planning and decisions due to a usability gap 23 . To address this usability gap, climate product development is increasingly shifting toward a demand-driven model that builds around user needs to deliver scientifically informed products that are useful, usable, and used 1, 15, 24 . Research on building user-driven climate products, particularly in climate services, has converged on the transdisciplinary theory of co-production 3, 4, 7, 25-27 . Co-production encompasses a broad concept of engagement anchored in joint knowledge creation and problem-solving 6, 13, 27, 28 . In practice, co-production is applied flexibly, enabling it to fit specific contexts and draw from other disciplines 5, 6, 25, 29 . One conception of co-production is a narrower, more normative approach focused on developing usable products through an iterative, interactive process 5, 29 . However, applying co-production for building user-driven climate adaptation products can be difficult because the theory is broad and offers limited guidance for context-specific implementation 5, 30, 31 . This is especially true for developers new to co-production or those building digital or software-based climate adaptation products, as these products face distinct usability, visualization, technical, and data constraints 8, 16, 20, 32 . With climate services still emerging and standards limited, there is an opportunity to assess co-production approaches for climate adaptation product development and test complementary approaches, especially for digital and software-based products 29, 30 . Human-computer interaction, an interdisciplinary computer science field that studies how users interact with technology, has seen limited crossover with climate services but could offer valuable lessons for building digital and software-based climate adaptation products 2, 14, 33 . Approaches within the field overlap with co-production and reflect a long tradition of user-oriented research and pragmatic design 2 . User-centered design is a human-computer interaction approach that incorporates users throughout product development 2, 8 . Used in the technology industry for decades, it encompasses practical mechanisms and practices across the product development process, from ideation to evaluation 2, 14 . For climate adaptation products, user-centered design can support building products that help users interpret scientific information, navigate uncertainty, and make informed long-term decisions 2 . Co-production approaches to product development could benefit from integrating user-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices 2 . This integration can facilitate a more user-driven process, address distinct challenges in building digital and software-based climate adaptation products, and provide developers with more practical, flexible guidance 2 . In this Analysis, we systematically review co-production and user-centered design approaches to climate adaptation product development, distilling key processes, mechanisms, and practices. We then use this mapping to identify an integration framework and show how an integrated approach can support user-driven development of digital and software-based climate adaptation products. Co-production approach Normative and descriptive objectives shape how co-production is implemented, from building usable tools to empowering groups or analyzing how knowledge is produced 5, 29, 34, 35 . We take a normative lens and focus on a co-production approach aimed at product development and more specifically, the building of user-driven climate adaptation products 5 . With this in mind, we use the Vincent et al. (2018) co-production approach to producing usable science 5 (Fig. 1). This approach to co-production involves a continuous cycle of five stages: Identify Actors & Build Partnerships , Co-Explore Need , Co-Develop Solution , Co-Deliver Solution , and Evaluate 5 (Table 1). These stages circle around an inner cycle of continuous knowledge exchange, monitoring, and learning along with a process driven by principles of inclusiveness, collaboration, and flexibility 5, 36 (Fig. 1). Together, the Vincent et al. (2018) approach provides a practical basis for understanding co-production for product development and for analyzing its mechanisms and practices 5 . [ Fig. 1 | Co-production process for product development ] [ Table 1 | Co-production stages for product development ] Co-production elements Co-production is widely discussed across literature related to climate adaptation products, and our review highlights this diversity through the elements (mechanisms and best practices) identified across the five co-production stages. Supporting background on climate services, user needs, and co-production is provided in the Methods. There were 24 mechanisms applied across one or more of the five co-production stages, categorized as 10 artifacts, 9 activities, and 5 actors (Extended Data Table 1). Stage-agnostic mechanisms were often common techniques such as surveys, interviews, workshops, and focus groups (Extended Data Table 1). Stage-specific mechanisms placed greater emphasis on communication (for example, newsletters), capacity building (for example, training sessions), and documentation (for example, stakeholder interaction manuals) (Extended Data Table 1). There were 64 best practices across the co-production stages, including those used to build effective products and those developers identified retrospectively as valuable (Extended Data Table 2). There are a few broad themes that connect many of these best practices. The first theme focuses on understanding, and the importance of comprehending the co-production process, as well as the capabilities and goals of developers and the needs and priorities of stakeholders and users. The second theme emphasizes communication, highlighting the importance of diverse mechanisms and opportunities for exchanging information, engaging with stakeholders and users, sharing results and progress, and gathering feedback. The third theme addresses iteration, stressing the importance of testing numerous iterations of products, using feedback to continuously refine plans and products, and maintaining flexibility and openness throughout the co-production process. The fourth theme centers on evaluation, particularly regarding whether the final climate adaptation product delivered is both usable and beneficial to users and their needs. In addition to these four key themes, there are numerous other best practices that developers consider vital for implementing an effective co-production process and building usable climate adaptation products. User-centered design approach The user-centered design process typically includes planning, understanding context and user needs, defining requirements, designing solutions, prototyping, and testing 37, 38 . Although implementation varies, user-centered design has been codified by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 39 . For this paper, we adopt ISO’s user-centered design approach 39 (Fig. 2). This approach involves an iterative process divided into five stages: Plan Process , Understand Context , Specify User Requirements , Produce Solutions , and Evaluate Solutions 39 (Table 2). ISO’s user-centered design approach emphasizes prototyping multiple solutions in the Produce Solutions stage and formal user-centered evaluation, including usability testing, in the Evaluate Solutions stage 38, 39 . If evaluation in the Evaluate Solutions stage shows the product does not meet requirements set in the Specify User Requirements stage, the process returns to an earlier stage to address the gaps 37, 39 (Fig. 2). As with co-production, we use this user-centered design approach to categorize and analyze mechanisms and practices. [ Fig. 2 | User-centered design process ] [ Table 2 | User-centered design stages ] User-centered design elements User-centered design is widely used in climate and sustainability contexts but appears less often than co-production in literature related to climate adaptation products; nonetheless, our review identified elements (mechanisms and best practices) mapped across the five user-centered design stages. Supporting background on human-computer interaction and user-centered design is provided in the Methods. There were 41 mechanisms applied across one or more of the user-centered design stages, categorized as 19 artifacts, 21 activities, and 1 actor (Extended Data Table 3). Stage-agnostic mechanisms, similar to those in co-production, were often common techniques such as interviews, surveys, workshops, and focus groups (Extended Data Table 3). Stage-specific mechanisms span each stage and provide a range of mechanisms to guide developers through the user-centered design process (Extended Data Table 3). For some stage-specific mechanisms, there are sub-mechanisms such as different prototyping mechanisms that provide greater customization depending on the developers’ goals or the type of product being developed (Extended Data Table 3). Several mechanisms recur across stages and appear core to user-centered design. One of them is the context-of-use during the Understand Context stage, which is a central document that guides work on understanding user needs and organizes information on product or user context (Extended Data Table 3). Another is the user requirements specification during the Specify User Requirements , which organizes developer, user, and stakeholder requirements and provides a reference for the product design and evaluation (Extended Data Table 3). Prototypes are also essential, especially during the Produce Solutions stage, and the process entails frequent iteration using a mixture of low- and high-fidelity prototypes (Extended Data Table 3). Lastly, the Evaluate Solutions stage is a critical juncture for the user-centered design process with multiple mechanisms for testing usability and utility and for evaluating whether the final product delivered can be considered successful (Extended Data Table 3). There were 45 best practices across each user-centered design stage that contributed to an effective user-centered design process or successful product (Extended Data Table 4). These practices reveal broad themes similar to those identified in co-production. The first theme emphasizes understanding and the importance of comprehending the process, problem, goals, assumptions, characteristics, and success metrics. The second theme focuses on communication and collaboration with diverse interdisciplinary teams, users, and stakeholders. The third theme highlights iteration and the value of rapid and continuous prototyping, testing, feedback, and improvement. The fourth theme emphasizes methodicalness, and the significance of a systematic approach to organizing insights, validating findings, steering the process, and evaluating products. These themes are further complemented by connecting ideas in the user-centered design literature, such as accessibility, inclusivity, and prioritization. Integration approach The overlap in processes, mechanisms, and best practices highlights strong synergies between co-production and user-centered design 2 . Though the exact language present in each approach varies, co-production approaches to product development already include many aspects of user-centered design. For example, there are analogous mechanisms such as interviews, focus groups, and prototypes as well as best practices such as establishing interdisciplinary teams, working extensively with users, understanding the problem and goals, developing multiple prototypes, and testing the final product. Even the stages within each approach’s process show a similar structure and flow starting from planning and exploration of the problem context to building and evaluating the product (Fig. 1 and 2). Although co-production and user-centered design overlap, integrating user-centered design can add distinctive strengths, improving salience, credibility, and legitimacy and addressing underdeveloped areas in co-production 2 . User-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices help ensure that user input and needs are more effectively captured and incorporated, thereby increasing the relevance and contextual fit of climate adaptation products 3, 40, 41 . Likewise, user-centered design can make user engagement more structured, standardized, and transparent, which can strengthen trust and improve perceptions of impartiality and fairness 3, 17, 42-44 . Complementing these process-level strengths, user-centered design also contributes granular mechanisms for prototyping and testing, a stronger emphasis on systematic usability evaluation, and formal documentation tools such as context-of-use and user requirements specifications 45, 46 . These established mechanisms and practices, well suited to digital and software-based products, can help developers tailor co-production processes for online and technology-enabled contexts 8, 32 . Beyond these practical benefits, integrating user-centered design also presents an opportunity to reshape power dynamics. While co-production processes aim to center user needs, they can inadvertently reproduce unequal power relationships based on expertise or institutional authority 47, 48 . User-centered design offers mechanisms and practices that can help co-production center user needs and shift aspects of decision-making authority from developers to users 48 . Collectively, these benefits suggest that embedding user-centered design in co-production can improve usability while advancing more salient, credible, legitimate, and equitable climate adaptation product development. Co-production approaches to product development can integrate user-centered design in two primary ways. First, through a selective integration, user-centered design can expand the toolkit of available mechanisms and practices available during a co-production approach to product development. Using this type of integration, developers can selectively pick and choose user-centered design mechanisms or practices as needed during different co-production stages. For example, during the co-production Co-Explore Need stage where the goal is to understand decision need, user-centered design mechanisms such as context-of-use or user scenarios could be useful and used. Second, through a holistic integration, user-centered design can be embedded as a complete secondary process during a co-production approach for product development. This type of integration can be especially helpful for developers who are at the product-building stages of co-production and need to narrow down from a broader co-production process and focus on building tangible product or product features. For example, an entire user-centered design process can be embedded during the co-production Co-Develop Solution stage to explicitly and pragmatically guide the development of a digital or software-based climate adaptation product before returning to the broader co-production process. Regardless of integration type, user-centered design can give developers flexible, tangible mechanisms and practices that support user-driven climate adaptation products. Integration framework To support practical implementation, we propose a concise integration framework for incorporating user-centered design into co-production when developing digital or software-based climate adaptation products. Integration can be selective (adding user-centered design mechanisms to specific co-production stages) or holistic (embedding a full user-centered design process within part of the co-production process). The following guidance provides a starting point for applying either integration: Deepen Familiarity with User-Centered Design: Deepen familiarity with user-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices to clarify integration options and where user-centered design can add value within co-production. Map Co-production Process: Map where the project, or broader product development effort, sits in the co-production process, even if a formal process has not begun, to guide which integration and user-centered design mechanisms or practices are most relevant. Assess Constraints: Assess time, funding, and engagement capacity, since constraints such as limited time or unclear requirements shape whether selective or holistic integration is feasible and which user-centered design mechanisms and practices are appropriate. Identify Desired Outcomes: Identify desired outcomes such as rapid delivery, usability, or equitable engagement to help determine the integration and the user-centered design mechanisms and practices needed to achieve intended outcomes. Decide Which Integration: Decide whether selective or holistic integration fits best based on project stage, constraints, and desired outcomes, then use that choice to guide which user-centered design mechanisms and practices to apply, where to apply them, and how extensively. Adjust As Needed: Adjust the integration approach and user-centered design mechanisms and practices as feedback and needs evolve, remaining flexible and open to modification. By emphasizing process awareness, intentionality, and flexibility, this integration framework provides a practical entry point for developers to tailor the integration of user-centered design into co-production. Case examples To demonstrate the value and variability of integrating user-centered design into co-production, we present two illustrative examples of climate adaptation product development: Europe-based Project Ukko and the U.S.-based Strategic Conservation Assessment (SCA) Tool. Project Ukko explicitly applied a full user-centered design process, while the SCA Tool implicitly incorporated selective user-centered design mechanisms without formally naming them 7, 10, 49 . Together, these examples illustrate holistic and selective integration. We also use the integration framework to show how it can be applied in practice. Project Ukko, a seasonal wind-speed forecasting tool for the wind energy sector, exemplifies explicit, holistic integration of user-centered design within co-production 10 . The interdisciplinary project team brought together climate scientists, designers, stakeholders, and users, and employed a co-production approach that incorporated co-design, co-development, and co-evaluation throughout the product development process 10 . Through participatory approaches such as continuous communication, stakeholder workshops, and reciprocal knowledge exchange, the team applied co-production mechanisms to build shared understanding, define user needs, and incorporate user perspectives into the product’s design 10 . At the same time, they explicitly embedded user-centered design processes by engaging end users throughout all stages of development and applying specific user-centered design mechanisms such as user surveys, context-of-use, iterative prototyping, and user testing 10 . Feedback loops were also used across phases to refine visualizations and improve overall usability 10 . Developers prototyped and tested seasonal forecasts and visualizations, iterating on symbols, parameters, and maps to improve usefulness and intuitiveness for users 10 . Project Ukko demonstrates how integrating user-centered design can enhance co-production by providing concrete mechanisms to synthesize user input, clarify user requirements, and evaluate usability 10 . The project’s outcomes, including more intuitive data communication, improved usability, and higher user engagement, underscore the value that user-centered design can add to co-production-based product development processes 10 . Viewed through the integration framework, this example highlights how the developers purposefully implemented an integrated user-centered design by building familiarity with its mechanisms and practices, mapping their co-production process, assessing constraints, and clarifying intended outcomes. The SCA Tool is a land conservation and resilience decision-support platform for conservation professionals that illustrates implicit, selective integration of user-centered design within a co-production process 7, 49 . Although the project did not explicitly reference user-centered design, it incorporated several mechanisms and practices that align closely with user-centered design. Developed using a co-production approach, the SCA Tool emphasized bidirectional knowledge exchange between developers and users and an iterative development cycle 7 . Through a series of charrettes (design workshops), developers collaborated with users to establish shared priorities, gather feedback, refine features and metrics, and test functionality 7 . This product development approach centered on joint knowledge creation, problem-solving, and co-development and resulted in the launch of an assortment of geospatial products and use case studies 7, 49 . Throughout the process and charrettes, the developers gathered hundreds of user priorities, comments, and suggestions through mechanisms such as formally specifying user requirements, rapid prototyping, frequent user testing, and structured usability evaluation 2, 7, 8, 39, 50 . Although not labeled as user-centered design, these mechanisms are more typical of user-centered design than co-production and helped align the SCA Tool with user needs 2, 8, 39, 50 . The implicit user-centered design mechanisms were especially instrumental in ensuring that the data presented in the geospatial products was relevant to users’ decision-making contexts 7 . This example shows how user-centered design mechanisms can emerge organically and be selectively integrated into co-production in digital or software-based product development. It also suggests that more explicit, intentional user-centered design integration could further strengthen the SCA Tool’s usefulness, usability, and impact. Viewed through the integration framework, the developers could have more explicitly incorporated user-centered design by first deepening their familiarity with user-centered design and clarifying how it could support their desired outcomes. With this foundation, they would have been better positioned to determine which user-centered design mechanisms to selectively apply at different stages of their process. Conclusion A co-production approach to developing user-driven climate adaptation products that are salient, legitimate, and credible can be further strengthened with the integration of user-centered design. By employing either a selective or holistic integration, guided by an integration framework, user-centered design expands the possibilities and configurability of co-production by offering additional processes, mechanisms, and practices for developers. For developers new to co-production or focused on creating digital or software-based climate adaptation products, this Analysis offers a conceptual grounding in the processes, mechanisms, and practices associated with co-production approaches to product development and user-centered design. Although integrating user-centered design within co-production offers considerable potential, some open questions and limitations remain. Systematic literature reviews, while valuable for structuring and synthesizing knowledge, face study design and methodological constraints. In this review, we encountered interpretive challenges from the broad and interdisciplinary nature of co-production and human-computer interaction, variability in findings, and the risk of publication bias. Beyond methodological issues, practical constraints such as limited resources and time can restrict the ability to implement comprehensive product development approaches or sustain ongoing iteration, collaboration, and maintenance 6 . Especially given the critical nature of climate change and the need for timely climate adaptation products, extended product development cycles or delays in product delivery can reduce the relevance and utility of even well-designed, user-focused products 4, 5, 18, 19 . Finally, questions remain about scalability and generalizability, particularly how well tailored products can transfer across different settings. These limitations are explored further in the Methods, along with details on how an integrated approach to product development, combining user-centered design and co-production, can proactively address these hurdles during the development process and help manage them over time. With these gaps and opportunities in mind, we explore how bridging the fields of climate services and human-computer interaction, and leveraging their respective co-production and user-centered design approaches, can drive innovation in how we build user-driven climate adaptation products. Ultimately, by prioritizing user collaboration throughout the product development process, we can ensure that climate adaptation products not only deliver their intended impact but also fully realize their potential to address climate adaptation challenges. Methods Here we describe our methods for mapping co-production and user-centered design in climate adaptation product development, focusing on processes, mechanisms, and best practices. We also provide background and review on climate services, user needs, human-computer interaction, and user-centered design. We conducted a systematic review of journal articles and white papers using five databases spanning climate services and human-computer interaction: ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Climate-ADAPT, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Searches were run July 25-26, 2023 across available database fields, including titles, abstracts, and full text, using terms targeting digital or software-based climate adaptation products. For the co-production portion of the review, we used the following syntax, modified for each database’s search interface: (“climate service” OR “climate information service” OR “climate change service”) AND (adapt!) AND (software OR digital OR tech! OR web! OR app!) For the user-centered design portion of the review, few studies addressed climate products, so we expanded the search on July 26, 2023 to include environmental and sustainability-themed products. The following syntax was modified for each database’s search interface: (“human computer interaction” OR “hci”) AND (“user centered design” OR “ucd”) AND (“climate” OR “sustainab!” OR “environmental”) The search targeted articles published starting on January 1, 2005, with no defined end date. However, given the timing of the searches, the effective end date was July 26, 2023. We used the databases listed below with structured, reproducible queries, applying consistent search strings across platforms and across both review portions, except for the ISO database. Database-specific ranking and sorting settings: ScienceDirect: Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms). ACM Digital Library: Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by recency (ranked by relevance with an additional penalty for older publications). IEEE Xplore: Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms). Climate-ADAPT: Resource Catalogue search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms). ISO: Advanced search used; initial queries returned no results, so queries were broadened to identify relevant standards. The platform does not specify ranking criteria and does not allow sorting. Modified queries included: (climate service OR climate information service OR climate change service) OR (climate adapt) (human computer interaction OR hci) OR (user centered design OR ucd) After retrieval, abstracts were initially screened against inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were specifically designed as an initial quality filter, prioritizing studies of high relevance. Following this initial screening, duplicates were removed, and a secondary screening was conducted. During the secondary screening, each paper’s full text was read and reviewed against the inclusion criteria to ensure relevance, quality, and methodological rigor. Papers that were challenging to assess against the inclusion criteria were re-evaluated and assessed collaboratively with another author. Search syntax, screening methodology, and inclusion criteria were reviewed by all authors. For the co-production portion, we applied the following inclusion criteria: Paper is focused on one or multiple of the following themes: Building climate adaptation products Lessons in or best practices for building climate adaptation products User needs for climate adaptation products Paper mentions digital or software-based technologies Paper is published in or after 2005 Paper is in English For the user-centered design portion, we applied the following inclusion criteria: Paper is focused on one or multiple of the following themes: Building climate, sustainability, or environmental products User-centered design mechanisms Lessons in or best practices for user-centered design Paper mentions digital or software-based technologies Paper is published in or after 2005 Paper is in English Following this process, 45 papers remained in the final database for the co-production portion of the review, published between 2016 and 2023 (inclusive) (Extended Data Table 5). In contrast, 35 papers remained in the final database for the user-centered design portion, published between 2005 and 2023 (inclusive) (Extended Data Table 6). The literature search and screening process is summarized in a flow diagram (Methods Fig. 1). [ Methods Fig. 1 | Flow diagram of study identification, screening and inclusion ] Coding and analysis From the final 80 papers, we selected representative co-production and user-centered design processes based on design quality, stage clarity, and consistency with the broader literature. We then examined the papers for (1) mechanisms used in climate product development and (2) practices that contributed to, or were reported as supporting, product or process success. Similar mechanisms and practices were grouped within each corpus and mapped to the relevant stages of the selected co-production or user-centered design process (for full lists of mechanisms and practices, see Extended Data Tables 1-4). In this review, we apply “mechanism” and “practice” broadly to capture as many elements as possible that were used, relevant, or considered useful for climate adaptation product development. This inclusive framing reflects the diversity found in the literature, where mechanisms and best practices are not always consistently labeled or defined but are nonetheless integral to product development processes. “Mechanism” refers to the structured means by which product development is carried out. For further clarity, mechanisms can be distinguished between three types: artifact (for example, affinity diagram), activity (for example, interview), or actor (for example, knowledge broker). An “artifact” is a tangible output or tool that guides or results from the product development process. An “activity” is a structured engagement or procedure used to gather insights or test ideas. An “actor” is a person or group who participates in or supports the process. All mechanisms are categorized into one of these three types (for more details, see Extended Data). This typology is intended as a practical categorization to aid interpretation, recognizing that in practice the boundaries between these three types of mechanisms are often fuzzy rather than rigid. “Practice” refers to any recurring activity, behavior, or procedural action that contributes to or supports product development. Practices range from high-level process elements (for example, defining roles) to applied and operational actions (for example, developing multiple prototypes). This broad categorization reflects the practical and conceptual variety of strategies used in the development of climate adaptation products. Limitations Several limitations shape the findings of this review. In study design and methodology, we faced interpretive challenges, and some differences between co-production and user-centered design may reflect terminology rather than fundamental distinctions. Given the interdisciplinary nature of human-computer interaction and the flexible, case-specific application of co-production, comparable mechanisms and practices may be described differently across fields. For example, workshops, interviews, user assessments, and prototyping techniques may be labeled differently in climate services versus human-computer interaction literature. This creates interpretive challenges and suggests that apparent differences between co-production and user-centered design may be smaller than they seem. Although our goal was to capture a wide range of mechanisms and practices as a developer-facing reference, this breadth is a limitation and warrants further clarification. Even so, user-centered design offers tested mechanisms that can strengthen climate adaptation product development, particularly for digital and software-based products. For example, user-centered design includes mature, widely used mechanisms that can support a more structured and rigorous product development process, such as context-of-use, user requirements specification, user testing, and usability metrics. These kinds of mechanisms could offer a way to introduce methodological diversity, practicality, and structure into co-production processes, potentially helping to translate user needs into more testable, design-oriented outputs. Additionally, study findings may vary due to search timing, inclusion criteria, and the human screening and mapping process. These factors could introduce heterogeneity, as different reviewers might interpret the inclusion criteria or classify mechanisms and practices in varying ways. However, we identified these potential sources of variation during the review process and consulted additional researchers to validate both the approach and the quality of the findings. Another methodological limitation is potential publication bias, as the peer-reviewed literature skews toward studies with positive results. To mitigate publication bias and diversify sources, we included Climate-ADAPT and ISO white papers alongside peer-reviewed studies. Finally, limiting searches to five databases may have missed relevant academic or grey literature, potentially omitting additional processes, mechanisms, practices, or cases. There are also practical limitations of pursuing an integrated approach to product development as well. For instance, determining the minimum requirements for developing a user-driven climate adaptation product can be challenging, as necessary processes, mechanisms, and practices depend on the context. Similarly, funding or time constraints can limit the ability to implement an extensive product development approach. Time- and budget-planning across product development stages, paired with lower-cost engagement mechanisms (for example, remote interactions) and time-bound goals, can help mitigate these constraints 5, 18, 51 . To maintain co-production and user-centered design benefits while accelerating timelines, agile, modular approaches can gather feedback quickly and deliver functional prototypes earlier 16, 36, 52 . In particularly time-sensitive contexts such as disaster preparedness or narrow policy windows, prioritizing climate adaptation products that are delivered quickly and are “good enough” may be more effective than pursuing more refined but time-intensive tools. In the long run, user-driven product development may even save time by using early prototyping and testing to ensure products are usable and successful from launch 50 . These constraints also intersect with questions of scalability and generalizability. While many user-driven climate adaptation products are designed for specific user contexts, it remains an open question how well these tailored solutions can scale or transfer across different settings. However, integrating user-centered design into co-production may generate reusable approaches, design insights, or templates that support extension to new or adjacent contexts. User-centered design mechanisms such as context-of-use documentation and user requirements specifications can facilitate this process by providing structured insights into the original product’s user group, decision environment, and contextual conditions, forming a basis for modifying the product to other settings 39 . Climate services background Climate services encompass the development and dissemination of climate adaptation products and other climate-related tools. Since emerging a few decades ago, the field has grown through initiatives such as the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), national climate services centers, and promotion by organizations including the European Union 13, 14, 29 . Although definitions and terminology vary, climate services generally refer to the use and tailoring of climate information to support decision-making on adaptation, mitigation, and other climate-related topics 1, 2, 19, 30, 53, 54 . Climate services are often framed as the production, translation, and transfer of climate information, with an emphasis on usable, actionable, and tailored information for decision-makers 11, 25 . For climate adaptation products, in particular, the information the products contain, use, or deliver can include shorter-term weather data, longer-term climate data, physical measurements, climate impact variables, expert advice, and more 2, 25, 43 . Climate adaptation products can also span timescales from sub-seasonal to decadal and delivery mediums from fully digital and software-based products to non-digital formats 3 . These products can support decisions in areas such as climate risk and impact assessment, planning and infrastructure, and resource management 16, 55-57 . Despite their intent, climate adaptation products often fall short of practical user needs and the urgency of current climate risks 29, 44 . Many products fail to deliver timely, decision-relevant insights, limiting their value for adaptation action 5, 23, 29 . As warming thresholds are surpassed, there is a growing need for product development approaches that help users interpret diverse climate information and support long-term as well as immediate and near-term adaptation decisions 1, 12, 19, 20, 23, 54 . User needs background Meeting user needs for climate adaptation requires addressing numerous aspects. There is the aspect of uncertainty in future climate conditions and the need for scientific expertise to interpret projections and results, alongside the need to understand adaptive capacity across organizational and governance scales 1, 13, 19, 58 . There is the breadth of short- and long-term adaptation options and how they interact with broader societal and environmental dynamics 56, 57 . There is the need to understand user context and the challenge of navigating multi-stakeholder decision-making with competing interests 13, 28 . And there is the need for timely delivery to support decisions under urgent or rapidly evolving climate conditions 4, 5 . To surmount these complexities and build efficacious climate adaptation products, the climate services literature typically emphasizes core tenets of salience (relevance), credibility (quality and dependability), and legitimacy (impartiality and fairness) 5, 8, 19, 30, 43, 58-60 . Salience underscores that one-size-fits-all, supply-driven information is often ineffective because user groups need different types of information 42 . For climate adaptation products, this means tailoring information and delivery to ensure it is relevant to the decisions it will inform 41 . Salience can also involve adjusting spatial and temporal scales to fit decision context, using clear prose or visuals, tailoring the level of detail to help users absorb information, linking information to local contexts through customized metrics, and using stories that resonate with users’ livelihoods 42, 61-65 . Credibility centers on information quality and whether users trust a product’s results 8, 42 . For climate adaptation products using weather forecasts or climate projections, credibility depends on clearly communicating uncertainty so users’ expectations for future scenarios are aligned with what the information can support 8, 63 . Credibility can also involve using trusted data sources, documenting assumptions and methods, adhering to data and metadata standards, implementing quality assurance, and tailoring communication about confidence and uncertainty 3, 25, 26, 43, 62 . Legitimacy involves aligning with users’ standards, values, and norms and maintaining transparency in the process 8, 26, 63 . For climate adaptation products, legitimacy depends on respecting user views and feedback to build mutual trust between developers and users 36, 63 . Legitimacy can also involve adhering to national and global standards, incorporating feedback, tracing results to reliable sources, following agreed work plans, aligning with local knowledge and values, and communicating transparently 8, 25, 26, 44, 63, 66 . Salience, credibility, and legitimacy are interconnected and rely on sustained dialogue and collaboration between developers and users 42 . These criteria provide a benchmark for how to pursue a demand-driven model for climate adaptation product development and build products that are more likely to meet users’ needs, be used by decision-makers, and influence adaptation action 3 . Co-production background Climate services literature often advocates for co-production, a wide-ranging theory of research engagement, interaction, and collaboration, to build salient, credible, and legitimate products and help close the usability gap 5, 6, 18, 29, 31, 34, 36, 64 . Co-production is typically described as the integration of diverse knowledge, experiences, and practices to foster mutual learning and develop new ideas, products, processes, or outcomes 6, 67, 68 . It often integrates participatory approaches, including related ‘co-’ terms such as co-design and co-development 6, 29, 31, 34, 61, 64, 69 . Co-production spans disciplines beyond climate services, with roots in participatory development, public services administration, and science, technology, and policy, and is conceptualized differently across fields 5, 18 . Even within climate services, co-production lacks a standardized approach 13, 16, 29, 30 . While recent discussions have explored the potential for greater standardization in the development and delivery of climate services 30 , co-production is still widely understood as a guiding framework that is case-dependent and shaped by the specific purpose, users, and decision-making environment 5, 13, 16, 29, 31, 34, 36 . Human-computer interaction background Human-computer interaction emerged in the 1980s to improve the interface between users and computers 33 . The interdisciplinary field aims to design systems that improve interactions among users, tasks, tools, and environments 70 . To guide this aim, human-computer interaction draws on psychology, emphasizing user cognition, perception, mental models, and attention 50 . In summary, human-computer interaction strives to build usable products and positive user experiences, often through usability principles and user-centered design 33, 50 . Usability is the degree to which a user can utilize a product to meet specified goals within a particular context 71 . The theory reflects how well users can achieve goals with effectiveness (goals achieved completely and accurately), efficiency (goals achieved in a timely manner), and satisfaction (goals achieved with comfort and positive emotions) 32, 39, 71, 72 . More recently, usability has expanded to include learnability, accessibility, maintainability, recognizability, and operability 33, 71 . User-centered design is frequently cited in human-computer interaction as an approach that can improve and help realize usability 32, 46, 73 . In fact, usability is a core criterion for evaluating the success of a user-centered design process 38 . User-centered design background User-centered design, often referred to as human-centered design, is a design approach and methodology focused on developing products that meet user needs 32, 38, 39 . It can be viewed as a framework, craft, or philosophy, but regardless of its classification, user-centered design emphasizes placing users at the center of the product development process and understanding their characteristics, needs, wants, and limitations 8, 45 . Key principles of this approach include ideation, prototyping, iteration, validation, usability, utility, and verification 32, 39, 50, 73, 74 . Given its foundation in usability and user experience, user-centered design is widely applied in developing websites, software applications, and other digital or software-based products 32, 75, 76 . Similar to co-production approaches to product development, user-centered design emphasizes user interaction and aims to build products that are useful, usable, and used 10, 50 . Although user-centered design is well established in human-computer interaction and aligns with co-production principles, it is one of several user-engagement traditions in the field 77, 78 . Other approaches such as participatory design, co-design, critical design, and design and emotion reflect different conceptualizations of the developer-user relationship and offer alternative frameworks for user involvement 77, 78 . We focus on user-centered design because it is methodologically mature, stage-structured, and centered on usability and iteration, closely paralleling co-production and offering an accessible entry point for developers less familiar with human-computer interaction 2, 38, 73, 75, 78 . At the same time, critiques of user-centered design also note how it can position users too passively or narrowly 78, 79 . In sustainable human-computer interaction, which applies a critical environmental lens to product and systems design, some argue that user-centered design’s human-centeredness can overlook ecological systems and non-human actors 79-82 . Given our focus on digital and software-based climate adaptation products, user-centered design offers a pragmatic, well-documented foundation for integration, while future work can examine how other human-computer interaction approaches, particularly sustainability-oriented ones, might further extend these processes. Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability This study is a systematic review of published literature. All data supporting the findings of this review are publicly available in those sources, which are described in the Methods and listed in the Extended Data. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Nancy Freitas, Kripa Jagannathan, and Brian L. Trelstad for their valuable review and feedback on the ideas for this paper. Author contributions N.A.C. led the study, including the literature search and systematic review. N.A.C. conducted the searches, gathered articles, screened articles, and extracted and categorized mechanisms and best practices from articles, with additional review and support from A.D.J. All co-authors reviewed the final results. N.A.C. drafted the manuscript, and all co-authors contributed to reviewing, commenting on, and revising the text. Additional information Correspondence should be addressed to N. A. Chaudhry. References Main text references Lourenço, T. C., Swart, R., Goosen, H. & Street, R. The rise of demand-driven climate services. Nature Climate Change 6 , 13–14 (2016). Rigby, J. M. & Preist, C. Towards user-centred climate services: the role of human-computer interaction, 1–14 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023). Hewitt, C. D. & Stone, R. Climate services for managing societal risks and opportunities. Climate Services 23 (2021). Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J. & Ramprasad, V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change 2 , 789–794 (2012). Vincent, K., Daly, M., Scannell, C. & Leathes, B. What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? Climate Services 12 , 48–58 (2018). Fleming, A. et al. Perceptions of co-design, co-development and co-delivery (co-3d) as part of the co-production process – insights for climate services. Climate Services 30 (2023). Sesser, A. L. et al. Co-producing decision support tools for strategic conservation of Gulf Coast landscapes. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 4 (2022). Grainger, S., Mao, F. & Buytaert, W. Environmental data visualisation for non-scientific contexts: Literature review and design framework. Environmental Modelling and Software 85 , 299–318 (2016). Brooks, M. S. Accelerating innovation in climate services: The 3 E’s for climate service providers. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94 , 807–819 (2013). Christel, I. et al. Introducing design in the development of effective climate services. Climate Services 9 , 111–121 (2018). Barnet, A. F. et al. Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in european destinations. Climate Services 23 (2021). Bevacqua, E., Schleussner, C.-F. & Zscheischler, J. A year above 1.5°C signals that Earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the Paris Agreement limit. Nature Climate Change 15 , 262–265 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02246-9. Suhari, M., Dressel, M. & Schuck-Zöller, S. Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. Climate Services 25 (2022). Harjanne, A. Servitizing climate science—institutional analysis of climate services discourse and its implications. Global Environmental Change 46 , 1–16 (2017). Findlater, K., Webber, S., Kandlikar, M. & Donner, S. Climate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nature Climate Change 11 , 731–737 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3. Terrado, M. et al. Co-production pathway of an end-to-end climate service for improved decision-making in the wine sector. Climate Services 30 (2023). Baulenas, E. et al. User selection and engagement for climate services coproduction. Weather, Climate, and Society 15 , 381–392 (2023). URL https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/15/2/WCAS-D-22-0112.1.xml. Vincent, K. et al. Co-production: Learning from Contexts, 37–56 (Springer International Publishing, 2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61160-6_3. Brasseur, G. P. & Gallardo, L. Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. Earth’s Future 4 , 79–89 (2016). Bessembinder, J. et al. Need for a common typology of climate services. Climate Services 16 (2019). Williams, D. S. & Jacob, D. From participatory to inclusive climate services for enhancing societal uptake. Climate Services 24 (2021). Pimentel, R. et al. Improving the usability of climate services for the water sector: The aquaclew experience. Climate Services 28 (2022). Boon, E., Wright, S. J., Biesbroek, R., Goosen, H. & Ludwig, F. Successful climate services for adaptation: What we know, don’t know and need to know. Climate Services 27 (2022). Vaughan, C., Dessai, S. & Hewitt, C. Surveying climate services: What can we learn from a bird’s-eye view? Weather, Climate, and Society 10 , 373–395 (2018). Bouroncle, C. et al. A systematic approach to assess climate information products applied to agriculture and food security in guatemala and colombia. Climate Services 16 (2019). Blair, B., Gierisch, A. M., Jeuring, J., Olsen, S. M. & Lamers, M. Mind the gap! a consensus analysis of users and producers on trust in new sea ice information products. Climate Services 28 (2022). Howarth, C., Lane, M., Morse-Jones, S., Brooks, K. & Viner, D. The ‘co’ in co-production of climate action: Challenging boundaries within and between science, policy and practice. Global Environmental Change 72 , 102445 (2022). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021002247. Labonnote, N., Åshild Lappegard Hauge & Sivertsen, E. A climate services perspective on norwegian stormwater-related databases. Climate Services 13 , 33–41 (2019). Bremer, S. et al. Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. Climate Services 13 , 42–50 (2019). Doblas-Reyes, F. J. et al. Standardisation of equitable climate services by supporting a community of practice. Climate Services 36 , 100520 (2024). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240588072400075X. Bojovic, D. et al. Engagement, involvement and empowerment: Three realms of a coproduction framework for climate services. Global Environmental Change 68 , 102271 (2021). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021000509. Salinas, E., Cueva, R. & Paz, F. A Systematic Review of User-Centered Design Techniques, 253–267 (Springer, Cham, 2020). Ebert, A., Gershon, N. D. & van der Veer, G. C. Human-computer interaction: Introduction and overview. KI - Kunstliche Intelligenz 26 , 121–126 (2012). Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3 , 182–190 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. Chambers, J. M. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4 , 983–996 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x. Neset, T. S. et al. Co-designing a citizen science climate service. Climate Services 24 (2021). Joshi, S., Nistala, P. V., Jani, H., Sakhardande, P. & Dsouza, T. User-centered design journey for pattern development, Vol. Part F132091, 1–19 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017). Fuhrmann, S. User-centered design for geoinformation technologies, 438–445 (2018). ISO standard 9241-210 ergonomics of human–system interaction — part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010). Martinez, G. et al. Societal local and regional resiliency spurred by contextualized climate services: The role of culture in co-production. Climate Services 26 (2022). Clifford, K. R., Travis, W. R. & Nordgren, L. T. A climate knowledges approach to climate services. Climate Services 18 (2020). Buontempo, C. et al. What have we learnt from euporias climate service prototypes? Climate Services 9 , 21–32 (2018). Swart, R. J. et al. Developing climate information portals with users: Promises and pitfalls. Climate Services 6 , 12–22 (2017). Jevne, F. L., Åshild Lappegard Hauge & Thomassen, M. K. User evaluation of a national web portal for climate change adaptation – a qualitative case study of the knowledge bank. Climate Services 30 (2023). Williams, A. User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design: A review of three methods for designing web applications, 1–8 (ACM, 2009). Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W. & Carey, T. The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM 48 (2005). Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 , 15–21 (2020). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343519301010. Vincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E. & Wågsæther, K. L. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nature Climate Change 10 , 877–878 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00910-w. Strategic Conservation Assessment of Gulf Coast Landscapes (2024). https://www.quest.fwrc.msstate.edu/sca-project.php [Accessed 10 Dec 2024]. Zulkafli, Z. et al. User-driven design of decision support systems for polycentric environmental resources management. Environmental Modelling and Software 88 , 58–73 (2017). Methods references Lemos, M. C. et al. The closer, the better? untangling scientist–practitioner engagement, interaction, and knowledge use. Weather, Climate, and Society 11 , 535 – 548 (2019). URL https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/11/3/wcas-d-18-0075 1.xml. Palacin, V. et al. Sensei: Harnessing community wisdom for local environmental monitoring in finland, 1–8 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019). McGinnis, S. & Mearns, L. Building a climate service for north america based on the na-cordex data archive. Climate Services 22 (2021). Vaughan, C., Buja, L., Kruczkiewicz, A. & Goddard, L. Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. Climate Services 4 , 65–74 (2016). ISO 14091 adaptation to climate change—guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment (2021). Cortekar, J., Bender, S., Brune, M. & Groth, M. Why climate change adaptation in cities needs customised and flexible climate services. Climate Services 4 , 42–51 (2016). Hoffmann, J. et al. Destination earth – a digital twin in support of climate services. Climate Services 30 , 100394 (2023). Vaughan, C. & Dessai, S. Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 , 587–603 (2014). Daniels, E., Bharwani, S., ˚Asa Gerger Swartling, Vulturius, G. & Brandon, K. Refocusing the climate services lens: Introducing a framework for co-designing “transdisciplinary knowledge integration processes” to build climate resilience. Climate Services 19 (2020). Visscher, K. et al. Matching supply and demand: A typology of climate services. Climate Services 17 (2020). Cantone, C., Grape, H. I., Habash, S. E. & Pechlivanidis, I. G. A co-generation success story: Improving drinking water management through hydro-climate services. Climate Services 31 (2023). Koesten, L. & Simperl, E. Ux of data: Making data available doesn’t make it usable. Interactions 28 , 97–99 (2021). Sarku, R., Slobbe, E. V., Termeer, K., Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G. & Dewulf, A. Usability of weather information services for decision-making in farming: Evidence from the ada east district, ghana. Climate Services 25 (2022). Paparrizos, S. et al. Hydro-climate information services for smallholder farmers: Farmersupport app principles, implementation, and evaluation. Climate Services 30 (2023). Ginige, A., Romano, M., Sebillo, M., Vitiello, G. & Giovanni, P. D. Spatial data and mobile applications – general solutions for interface design, 189–196 (2012). Buontempo, C. et al. Fostering the development of climate services through copernicus climate change service (c3s) for agriculture applications. Weather and Climate Extremes 27 (2020). Visman, E., Vincent, K., Steynor, A., Karani, I. & Mwangi, E. Defining metrics for monitoring and evaluating the impact of co-production in climate services. Climate Services 26 (2022). Kumar, U., Werners, S. E., Paparrizos, S., Datta, D. K. & Ludwig, F. Co-producing climate information services with smallholder farmers in the lower bengal delta: How forecast visualization and communication support farmers’ decision-making. Climate Risk Management 33 (2021). Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Jensen, E. S. & van der Sluijs, J. P. Quality assessment in co-developing climate services in norway and the netherlands. Frontiers in Climate 3 (2021). URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.627665. Shackel, B. Usability - context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interacting with Computers 21 , 339–346 (2009). Bevan, N., Carter, J., Earthy, J., Geis, T. & Harker, S. New ISO standards for usability, usability reports and usability measures, Vol. 9731, 268–278 (Springer Verlag, 2016). Brown, M. et al. Usability of geographic information: Current challenges and future directions. Applied Ergonomics 44 , 855–865 (2013). Robinson, A. C. et al. Beescape: Characterizing user needs for environmental decision support in beekeeping. Ecological Informatics 64 (2021). Barcena-Vazquez, J., Caro, K., Bermudez, K. & Zatarain-Aceves, H. Designing and evaluating reto global, a serious video game for supporting global warming awareness. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 177 , 103080 (2023). Bosello, M., Delnevo, G. & Mirri, S. On exploiting gamification for the crowdsensing of air pollution: A case study on a bicycle-based system, 205–210 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020). Bhatt, U. et al. Uncertainty as a form of transparency: Measuring, communicating, and using uncertainty, 401–413 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2021). Sanders, L. An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions 15 , 13–17 (2008). Sanders, E. B.-N. & Stappers, P. J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4 , 5–18 (2008). Scuri, S., Ferreira, M., Nunes, N. J., Nisi, V. & Mulligan, C. Hitting the triple bottom line: Widening the hci approach to sustainability (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517518. Hansson, L., Pargman, T. C. & Pargman, D. A decade of sustainable hci: Connecting shci to the sustainable development goals, 1–19 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021). DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P. & Brynjarsd´ottir, H. Mapping the landscape of sustainable hci, 1975 – 1984 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2010). de Almeida Neris, V. P., da Hora Rodrigues, K. R. & Lima, R. F. A systematic review of sustainability and aspects of human-computer interaction, Vol. 8512, 742–753 (Springer International Publishing, 2014). Carr, E. R. & Onzere, S. N. Really effective (for 15% of the men): Lessons in understanding and addressing user needs in climate services from Mali. Climate Risk Management 22 , 82–95 (2018). Gubler, S. et al. Twinning senamhi and meteoswiss to co-develop climate services for the agricultural sector in peru. Climate Services 20 (2020). S´anchez-Garc´ıa, E. et al. Co-design of sectoral climate services based on seasonal prediction information in the mediterranean. Climate Services 28 (2022). Bachelet, D. et al. Climate consoles: Pieces in the puzzle of climate change adaptation. Climate Services 8 , 36–43 (2017). Vollstedt, B., Koerth, J., Tsakiris, M., Nieskens, N. & Vafeidis, A. T. Co-production of climate services: A story map for future coastal flooding for the city of flensburg. Climate Services 22 (2021). Dell’Aquila, A. et al. Monitoring climate related risk and opportunities for the wine sector: The med-gold pilot service. Climate Services 30 (2023). Ceglar, A. et al. Clisagri: An r package for agro-climate services. Climate Services 20 (2020). Vano, J. A. et al. Dos and don’ts for using climate change information for water resource planning and management: guidelines for study design. Climate Services 12 , 1–13 (2018). Hinkel, J. et al. Co-creating a coastal climate service to prioritise investments in erosion prevention and sea-level rise adaptation in the maldives. Climate Services 31 (2023). Vogel, J., Letson, D. & Herrick, C. A framework for climate services evaluation and its application to the caribbean agrometeorological initiative. Climate Services 6 , 65–76 (2017). Ervasti, M. et al. ishake: Mobile phones as seismic sensors – user study findings, 43–52 (ACM, 2011). Nunes, N. J., Nisi, V. & Rennert, K. Beeco - co-designing a game with children to promote environmental awareness - a case study, Vol. 07-12-May-2016, 718–727 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016). Ozenc, F. K., Cranor, L. F. & Morris, J. H. Adapt-a-ride: Understanding the dynamics of commuting preferences through an experience design framework (ACM, 2011). Salminen, J., Guan, K. W., Jung, S. G. & Jansen, B. Use cases for design personas: A systematic review and new frontiers, 1–21 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022). Ferreira, M., Nisi, V. & Nunes, N. Interactions with climate change: a data humanism design approach, 1325–1338 (ACM, 2023). Romani, L. A., Magalh˜aes, G., Bambini, M. D. & Evangelista, S. R. Improving digital ecosystems for agriculture: Users participation in the design of a mobile app for agrometeorological monitoring, 234–241 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2015). Degrossi, L. C., Abe, B. B., Albuquerque, J. P. D. & Fortes, R. P. D. M. Enhancing usability of a citizen observatory based on user-centered design, 294–301 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018). Stephens, S. H. & Altamirano, A. Supporting community resilience to environmental hazards through user-centered design, 125–129 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2022). Crosby, A. et al. Designing ocean vision ai: An investigation of community needs for imaging-based ocean conservation, 1–16 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023). Brereton, M., Roe, P., Foth, M., Bunker, J. M. & Buys, L. Designing participation in agile ridesharing with mobile social software, 257–260 (ACM, 2009). Eggeling, J., Rydenf¨alt, C., Kingma, B., Toftum, J. & Gao, C. The usability of climapp: A personalized thermal stress warning tool. Climate Services 27 (2022). Vilarinho, T., Farshchian, B., Wienhofen, L. W., Franang, T. & Gulbrandsen, H. Combining persuasive computing and user centered design into an energy awareness system for smart houses, 32–39 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016). Giuliani, G., Nativi, S., Obregon, A., Beniston, M. & Lehmann, A. Spatially enabling the global framework for climate services: Reviewing geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data information. Climate Services 8 , 44–58 (2017). Tables Table 1 | Co-production stages for product development Stage Definition Identify Actors & Build Partnerships Recognize and gather stakeholders from multiple disciplines Co-Explore Need Understand decision need and decisions that product can address Co-Develop Solution Build product in collaboration with stakeholders Co-Deliver Solution Distribute product to stakeholders Evaluate Test and refine product with stakeholders Notes: Stage definitions draw on the Vincent et al. (2018) co-production approach 5 . Table 2 | User-centered design stages Stage Definition Plan Process Prepare project for user involvement Understand Context Identify the users, user needs, and user preferences and behaviors Specify User Requirements Identify and define user, business, and organizational goals Produce Solutions Build initial to final products based on user needs and requirements Evaluate Solutions Test products with users and get feedback Notes: Stage definitions draw on the ISO user-centered design approach 39 . Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files Extendeddatatables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 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-5426878","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Analysis","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":590026829,"identity":"cce6b8d5-6f8e-4d48-907e-056d676430ec","order_by":0,"name":"Nabig Chaudhry","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3783-539X","institution":"University of California, Berkeley","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nabig","middleName":"","lastName":"Chaudhry","suffix":""},{"id":590026830,"identity":"cf22e9df-e6c3-45f7-b055-2f38250d1f0d","order_by":1,"name":"William Collins","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4463-9848","institution":"Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"William","middleName":"","lastName":"Collins","suffix":""},{"id":590026831,"identity":"e8b2bb21-3750-4cf6-928b-1706746eaec7","order_by":2,"name":"David Anthoff","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9319-2109","institution":"University of California, Berkeley","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Anthoff","suffix":""},{"id":590026832,"identity":"cadae972-da52-4cbe-ba03-6a0e0bc5be2c","order_by":3,"name":"Andrew Jones","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-7870","institution":"Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"","lastName":"Jones","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-10 16:23:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102816197,"identity":"16cd5e89-aeaf-4f28-bf9d-b21555e46811","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 05:56:29","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":72897,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCo-production process for product development. \u003c/strong\u003eDiagram of a five-stage co-production process for product development. The cycle proceeds through \u003cem\u003eIdentify Actors \u0026amp; Build Partnerships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Explore Need\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Develop Solution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Deliver Solution\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEvaluate\u003c/em\u003e, and is organized around an inner loop of continuous knowledge exchange, monitoring, and learning\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. The process is guided by the principles of inclusiveness, collaboration, and flexibility, and the resulting product is shaped by three principles: decision-driven, process-based, and time-managed\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5426878/v1/681a4dcfed3a36e0aa6b421f.png"},{"id":102816200,"identity":"a7bb7f55-5599-4384-adcb-dedbc7c8dda8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 05:56:29","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUser-centered design process. \u003c/strong\u003eDiagram of a five-stage user-centered design process. The cycle iterates through \u003cem\u003ePlan Process\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eUnderstand Context\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSpecify User Requirements\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eProduce Solutions\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/em\u003e, with evaluation outcomes informing returns to earlier stages when requirements are not met\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e. The process is guided by principles that emphasize an explicit understanding of users, tasks, and environments; continuous user involvement; evaluation-driven refinement; iteration; attention to the full user experience; and multidisciplinary design teams\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5426878/v1/db82e59acee0f4221f55792d.png"},{"id":102963025,"identity":"2efe95c5-3a54-4c4c-8b4d-1269b1761659","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 04:12:54","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92753,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethods Fig. 1 | Flow diagram of study identification, screening and inclusion. Flow diagram of the systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines. Records were identified across five databases (ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Climate-ADAPT, and the ISO) for the co-production (n = 922) and user-centered design (n = 1,439) searches and subsequently screened (n = 2,361). Records were excluded during abstract screening (n = 2,179) and duplicates removed (n = 2) prior to full-text eligibility assessment (n = 180). Full-text exclusions (n = 100) were due to lack of topical focus (n = 68) or lack of relevance to digital or software-based technologies (n = 32). A total of 80 studies were included in the final review.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"M1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5426878/v1/f5e00494809f1014ff60e984.png"},{"id":103049398,"identity":"d8ea7062-9748-444f-8e36-c040f29f2856","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:40:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1309238,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5426878/v1/5f1d765b-846c-4221-9d66-f2561698f5a2.pdf"},{"id":102963081,"identity":"4702a329-2f86-4828-a088-558fd25da949","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 04:13:20","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":62513,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Extendeddatatables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5426878/v1/500d33f3ee70e4efb81aedbb.docx"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Building user-driven climate adaptation products","fulltext":[{"header":"Main text","content":"\u003cp\u003eClimate change is reshaping societal and ecological systems, and with 2024 now the first full calendar year above 1.5\u0026deg;C since pre-industrial times, information that supports adaptation to climate risks is increasingly urgent\u003csup\u003e9-12\u003c/sup\u003e. This need has accelerated demand for climate services, products, and tools (\u0026ldquo;climate products\u0026rdquo;) that support climate-informed decisions\u003csup\u003e1, 3\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the growth of climate products, many have fallen short of initial expectations\u003csup\u003e1, 13-15\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis partly reflects a one-directional, supply-driven model in which \u0026ldquo;developers\u0026rdquo; (often scientists and researchers) prioritize supplying better data and assume that more information will drive improved decision-making and action\u003csup\u003e1, 2, 15, 16\u003c/sup\u003e. Supply-driven climate products are scientifically driven but typically misaligned with user needs and decision requirements, limiting uptake and use\u003csup\u003e1, 2, 15, 17\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;usability gap\u0026rdquo; describes the mismatch between supplied information and what \u0026ldquo;users\u0026rdquo; of climate products need\u003csup\u003e2, 4, 18\u003c/sup\u003e. The usability gap for climate products is exacerbated by fragmented product development across organizations and by diverse users and stakeholders with varying expertise and decision needs\u003csup\u003e1, 4, 19, 20\u003c/sup\u003e. Here, \u0026ldquo;stakeholders\u0026rdquo; are those who impact or are impacted by the decisions and processes relevant to a climate product, and they often, but not always, overlap with users\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eClimate products that support adjustment to climate change (\u0026ldquo;climate adaptation products\u0026rdquo;) face added challenges in supporting user understanding and communicating uncertainty in forward-looking climate data\u003csup\u003e8, 22\u003c/sup\u003e. Consistent with these challenges, prior research suggests that climate adaptation products often fall short in supporting adaptation planning and decisions due to a usability gap\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo address this usability gap, climate product development is increasingly shifting toward a demand-driven model that builds around user needs to deliver scientifically informed products that are useful, usable, and used\u003csup\u003e1, 15, 24\u003c/sup\u003e. Research on building user-driven climate products, particularly in climate services, has converged on the transdisciplinary theory of co-production\u003csup\u003e3, 4, 7, 25-27\u003c/sup\u003e. Co-production encompasses a broad concept of engagement anchored in joint knowledge creation and problem-solving\u003csup\u003e6, 13, 27, 28\u003c/sup\u003e. In practice, co-production is applied flexibly, enabling it to fit specific contexts and draw from other disciplines\u003csup\u003e5, 6, 25, 29\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOne conception of co-production is a narrower, more normative approach focused on developing usable products through an iterative, interactive process\u003csup\u003e5, 29\u003c/sup\u003e. However, applying co-production for building user-driven climate adaptation products can be difficult because the theory is broad and offers limited guidance for context-specific implementation\u003csup\u003e5, 30, 31\u003c/sup\u003e. This is especially true for developers new to co-production or those building digital or software-based climate adaptation products, as these products face distinct usability, visualization, technical, and data constraints\u003csup\u003e8, 16, 20, 32\u003c/sup\u003e. With climate services still emerging and standards limited, there is an opportunity to assess co-production approaches for climate adaptation product development and test complementary approaches, especially for digital and software-based products\u003csup\u003e29, 30\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHuman-computer interaction, an interdisciplinary computer science field that studies how users interact with technology, has seen limited crossover with climate services but could offer valuable lessons for building digital and software-based climate adaptation products\u003csup\u003e2, 14, 33\u003c/sup\u003e. Approaches within the field overlap with co-production and reflect a long tradition of user-oriented research and pragmatic design\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eUser-centered design is a human-computer interaction approach that incorporates users throughout product development\u003csup\u003e2, 8\u003c/sup\u003e. Used in the technology industry for decades, it encompasses practical mechanisms and practices across the product development process, from ideation to evaluation\u003csup\u003e2, 14\u003c/sup\u003e. For climate adaptation products, user-centered design can support building products that help users interpret scientific information, navigate uncertainty, and make informed long-term decisions\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCo-production approaches to product development could benefit from integrating user-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. This integration can facilitate a more user-driven process, address distinct challenges in building digital and software-based climate adaptation products, and provide developers with more practical, flexible guidance\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn this Analysis, we systematically review co-production and user-centered design approaches to climate adaptation product development, distilling key processes, mechanisms, and practices. We then use this mapping to identify an integration framework and show how an integrated approach can support user-driven development of digital and software-based climate adaptation products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCo-production approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNormative and descriptive objectives shape how co-production is implemented, from building usable tools to empowering groups or analyzing how knowledge is produced\u003csup\u003e5, 29, 34, 35\u003c/sup\u003e. We take a normative lens and focus on a co-production approach aimed at product development and more specifically, the building of user-driven climate adaptation products\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. With this in mind, we use the Vincent et al. (2018) co-production approach to producing usable science\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig. 1). This approach to co-production involves a continuous cycle of five stages: \u003cem\u003eIdentify Actors \u0026amp; Build Partnerships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Explore Need\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Develop Solution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCo-Deliver Solution\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEvaluate\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e (Table 1). These stages circle around an inner cycle of continuous knowledge exchange, monitoring, and learning along with a process driven by principles of inclusiveness, collaboration, and flexibility\u003csup\u003e5, 36 \u003c/sup\u003e(Fig. 1). Together, the Vincent et al. (2018) approach provides a practical basis for understanding co-production for product development and for analyzing its mechanisms and practices\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cstrong\u003eFig. 1 | Co-production process for product development\u003c/strong\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 | Co-production stages for product development\u003c/strong\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCo-production elements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-production is widely discussed across literature related to climate adaptation products, and our review highlights this diversity through the elements (mechanisms and best practices) identified across the five co-production stages. Supporting background on climate services, user needs, and co-production is provided in the Methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere were 24 mechanisms applied across one or more of the five co-production stages, categorized as 10 artifacts, 9 activities, and 5 actors (Extended Data Table 1). Stage-agnostic mechanisms were often common techniques such as surveys, interviews, workshops, and focus groups (Extended Data Table 1). Stage-specific mechanisms placed greater emphasis on communication (for example, newsletters), capacity building (for example, training sessions), and documentation (for example, stakeholder interaction manuals) (Extended Data Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere were 64 best practices across the co-production stages, including those used to build effective products and those developers identified retrospectively as valuable (Extended Data Table 2). There are a few broad themes that connect many of these best practices. The first theme focuses on understanding, and the importance of comprehending the co-production process, as well as the capabilities and goals of developers and the needs and priorities of stakeholders and users. The second theme emphasizes communication, highlighting the importance of diverse mechanisms and opportunities for exchanging information, engaging with stakeholders and users, sharing results and progress, and gathering feedback. The third theme addresses iteration, stressing the importance of testing numerous iterations of products, using feedback to continuously refine plans and products, and maintaining flexibility and openness throughout the co-production process. The fourth theme centers on evaluation, particularly regarding whether the final climate adaptation product delivered is both usable and beneficial to users and their needs. In addition to these four key themes, there are numerous other best practices that developers consider vital for implementing an effective co-production process and building usable climate adaptation products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUser-centered design approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe user-centered design process typically includes planning, understanding context and user needs, defining requirements, designing solutions, prototyping, and testing\u003csup\u003e37, 38\u003c/sup\u003e. Although implementation varies, user-centered design has been codified by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e. For this paper, we adopt ISO\u0026rsquo;s user-centered design approach\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig. 2). This approach involves an iterative process divided into five stages: \u003cem\u003ePlan Process\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eUnderstand Context\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSpecify User Requirements\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eProduce Solutions\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e (Table 2). ISO\u0026rsquo;s user-centered design approach emphasizes prototyping multiple solutions in the \u003cem\u003eProduce Solutions\u003c/em\u003e stage and formal user-centered evaluation, including usability testing, in the \u003cem\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/em\u003e stage\u003csup\u003e38, 39\u003c/sup\u003e. If evaluation in the \u003cem\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/em\u003e stage shows the product does not meet requirements set in the \u003cem\u003eSpecify User Requirements\u003c/em\u003e stage, the process returns to an earlier stage to address the gaps\u003csup\u003e37, 39\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig. 2). As with co-production, we use this user-centered design approach to categorize and analyze mechanisms and practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cstrong\u003eFig. 2 | User-centered design process\u003c/strong\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 | User-centered design stages\u003c/strong\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUser-centered design elements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUser-centered design is widely used in climate and sustainability contexts but appears less often than co-production in literature related to climate adaptation products; nonetheless, our review identified elements (mechanisms and best practices) mapped across the five user-centered design stages. Supporting background on human-computer interaction and user-centered design is provided in the Methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere were 41 mechanisms applied across one or more of the user-centered design stages, categorized as 19 artifacts, 21 activities, and 1 actor (Extended Data Table 3). Stage-agnostic mechanisms, similar to those in co-production, were often common techniques such as interviews, surveys, workshops, and focus groups (Extended Data Table 3). Stage-specific mechanisms span each stage and provide a range of mechanisms to guide developers through the user-centered design process (Extended Data Table 3). For some stage-specific mechanisms, there are sub-mechanisms such as different prototyping mechanisms that provide greater customization depending on the developers\u0026rsquo; goals or the type of product being developed (Extended Data Table 3). Several mechanisms recur across stages and appear core to user-centered design. One of them is the context-of-use during the \u003cem\u003eUnderstand Context\u003c/em\u003e stage, which is a central document that guides work on understanding user needs and organizes information on product or user context (Extended Data Table 3). Another is the user requirements specification during the \u003cem\u003eSpecify User Requirements\u003c/em\u003e, which organizes developer, user, and stakeholder requirements and provides a reference for the product design and evaluation (Extended Data Table 3). Prototypes are also essential, especially during the \u003cem\u003eProduce Solutions\u003c/em\u003e stage, and the process entails frequent iteration using a mixture of low- and high-fidelity prototypes (Extended Data Table 3). Lastly, the \u003cem\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/em\u003e stage is a critical juncture for the user-centered design process with multiple mechanisms for testing usability and utility and for evaluating whether the final product delivered can be considered successful (Extended Data Table 3). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere were 45 best practices across each user-centered design stage that contributed to an effective user-centered design process or successful product (Extended Data Table 4). These practices reveal broad themes similar to those identified in co-production. The first theme emphasizes understanding and the importance of comprehending the process, problem, goals, assumptions, characteristics, and success metrics. The second theme focuses on communication and collaboration with diverse interdisciplinary teams, users, and stakeholders. The third theme highlights iteration and the value of rapid and continuous prototyping, testing, feedback, and improvement. The fourth theme emphasizes methodicalness, and the significance of a systematic approach to organizing insights, validating findings, steering the process, and evaluating products. These themes are further complemented by connecting ideas in the user-centered design literature, such as accessibility, inclusivity, and prioritization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntegration approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe overlap in processes, mechanisms, and best practices highlights strong synergies between co-production and user-centered design\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Though the exact language present in each approach varies, co-production approaches to product development already include many aspects of user-centered design. For example, there are analogous mechanisms such as interviews, focus groups, and prototypes as well as best practices such as establishing interdisciplinary teams, working extensively with users, understanding the problem and goals, developing multiple prototypes, and testing the final product. Even the stages within each approach\u0026rsquo;s process show a similar structure and flow starting from planning and exploration of the problem context to building and evaluating the product (Fig. 1 and 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough co-production and user-centered design overlap, integrating user-centered design can add distinctive strengths, improving salience, credibility, and legitimacy and addressing underdeveloped areas in co-production\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. User-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices help ensure that user input and needs are more effectively captured and incorporated, thereby increasing the relevance and contextual fit of climate adaptation products\u003csup\u003e3, 40, 41\u003c/sup\u003e. Likewise, user-centered design can make user engagement more structured, standardized, and transparent, which can strengthen trust and improve perceptions of impartiality and fairness\u003csup\u003e3,\u003c/sup\u003e \u003csup\u003e17, 42-44\u003c/sup\u003e. Complementing these process-level strengths, user-centered design also contributes granular mechanisms for prototyping and testing, a stronger emphasis on systematic usability evaluation, and formal documentation tools such as context-of-use and user requirements specifications\u003csup\u003e45, 46\u003c/sup\u003e. These established mechanisms and practices, well suited to digital and software-based products, can help developers tailor co-production processes for online and technology-enabled contexts\u003csup\u003e8, 32\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond these practical benefits, integrating user-centered design also presents an opportunity to reshape power dynamics. While co-production processes aim to center user needs, they can inadvertently reproduce unequal power relationships based on expertise or institutional authority\u003csup\u003e47, 48\u003c/sup\u003e. User-centered design offers mechanisms and practices that can help co-production center user needs and shift aspects of decision-making authority from developers to users\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e. Collectively, these benefits suggest that embedding user-centered design in co-production can improve usability while advancing more salient, credible, legitimate, and equitable climate adaptation product development. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eCo-production approaches to product development can integrate user-centered design in two primary ways. First, through a selective integration, user-centered design can expand the toolkit of available mechanisms and practices available during a co-production approach to product development. Using this type of integration, developers can selectively pick and choose user-centered design mechanisms or practices as needed during different co-production stages. For example, during the co-production \u003cem\u003eCo-Explore Need\u003c/em\u003e stage where the goal is to understand decision need, user-centered design mechanisms such as context-of-use or user scenarios could be useful and used. Second, through a holistic integration, user-centered design can be embedded as a complete secondary process during a co-production approach for product development. This type of integration can be especially helpful for developers who are at the product-building stages of co-production and need to narrow down from a broader co-production process and focus on building tangible product or product features. For example, an entire user-centered design process can be embedded during the co-production \u003cem\u003eCo-Develop Solution\u003c/em\u003e stage to explicitly and pragmatically guide the development of a digital or software-based climate adaptation product before returning to the broader co-production process. Regardless of integration type, user-centered design can give developers flexible, tangible mechanisms and practices that support user-driven climate adaptation products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntegration framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo support practical implementation, we propose a concise integration framework for incorporating user-centered design into co-production when developing digital or software-based climate adaptation products. Integration can be selective (adding user-centered design mechanisms to specific co-production stages) or holistic (embedding a full user-centered design process within part of the co-production process). The following guidance provides a starting point for applying either integration:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeepen Familiarity with User-Centered Design: \u003c/strong\u003eDeepen familiarity with user-centered design processes, mechanisms, and practices to clarify integration options and where user-centered design can add value within co-production.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMap Co-production Process:\u003c/strong\u003e Map where the project, or broader product development effort, sits in the co-production process, even if a formal process has not begun, to guide which integration and user-centered design mechanisms or practices are most relevant.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssess Constraints:\u003c/strong\u003e Assess time, funding, and engagement capacity, since constraints such as limited time or unclear requirements shape whether selective or holistic integration is feasible and which user-centered design mechanisms and practices are appropriate.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIdentify Desired Outcomes:\u003c/strong\u003e Identify desired outcomes such as rapid delivery, usability, or equitable engagement to help determine the integration and the user-centered design mechanisms and practices needed to achieve intended outcomes.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecide Which Integration:\u003c/strong\u003e Decide whether selective or holistic integration fits best based on project stage, constraints, and desired outcomes, then use that choice to guide which user-centered design mechanisms and practices to apply, where to apply them, and how extensively. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdjust As Needed:\u003c/strong\u003e Adjust the integration approach and user-centered design mechanisms and practices as feedback and needs evolve, remaining flexible and open to modification. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBy emphasizing process awareness, intentionality, and flexibility, this integration framework provides a practical entry point for developers to tailor the integration of user-centered design into co-production.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCase examples\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo demonstrate the value and variability of integrating user-centered design into co-production, we present two illustrative examples of climate adaptation product development: Europe-based Project Ukko and the U.S.-based Strategic Conservation Assessment (SCA) Tool. Project Ukko explicitly applied a full user-centered design process, while the SCA Tool implicitly incorporated selective user-centered design mechanisms without formally naming them\u003csup\u003e7, 10, 49\u003c/sup\u003e. Together, these examples illustrate holistic and selective integration. We also use the integration framework to show how it can be applied in practice. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eProject Ukko, a seasonal wind-speed forecasting tool for the wind energy sector, exemplifies explicit, holistic integration of user-centered design within co-production\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. The interdisciplinary project team brought together climate scientists, designers, stakeholders, and users, and employed a co-production approach that incorporated co-design, co-development, and co-evaluation throughout the product development process\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Through participatory approaches such as continuous communication, stakeholder workshops, and reciprocal knowledge exchange, the team applied co-production mechanisms to build shared understanding, define user needs, and incorporate user perspectives into the product\u0026rsquo;s design\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. At the same time, they explicitly embedded user-centered design processes by engaging end users throughout all stages of development and applying specific user-centered design mechanisms such as user surveys, context-of-use, iterative prototyping, and user testing\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Feedback loops were also used across phases to refine visualizations and improve overall usability\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Developers prototyped and tested seasonal forecasts and visualizations, iterating on symbols, parameters, and maps to improve usefulness and intuitiveness for users\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Project Ukko demonstrates how integrating user-centered design can enhance co-production by providing concrete mechanisms to synthesize user input, clarify user requirements, and evaluate usability\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. The project\u0026rsquo;s outcomes, including more intuitive data communication, improved usability, and higher user engagement, underscore the value that user-centered design can add to co-production-based product development processes\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Viewed through the integration framework, this example highlights how the developers purposefully implemented an integrated user-centered design by building familiarity with its mechanisms and practices, mapping their co-production process, assessing constraints, and clarifying intended outcomes. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe SCA Tool is a land conservation and resilience decision-support platform for conservation professionals that illustrates implicit, selective integration of user-centered design within a co-production process\u003csup\u003e7, 49\u003c/sup\u003e. Although the project did not explicitly reference user-centered design, it incorporated several mechanisms and practices that align closely with user-centered design. Developed using a co-production approach, the SCA Tool emphasized bidirectional knowledge exchange between developers and users and an iterative development cycle\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. Through a series of charrettes (design workshops), developers collaborated with users to establish shared priorities, gather feedback, refine features and metrics, and test functionality\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. This product development approach centered on joint knowledge creation, problem-solving, and co-development and resulted in the launch of an assortment of geospatial products and use case studies\u003csup\u003e7, 49\u003c/sup\u003e. Throughout the process and charrettes, the developers gathered hundreds of user priorities, comments, and suggestions through mechanisms such as formally specifying user requirements, rapid prototyping, frequent user testing, and structured usability evaluation\u003csup\u003e2, 7, 8, 39, 50\u003c/sup\u003e. Although not labeled as user-centered design, these mechanisms are more typical of user-centered design than co-production and helped align the SCA Tool with user needs\u003csup\u003e2, 8, 39, 50\u003c/sup\u003e. The implicit user-centered design mechanisms were especially instrumental in ensuring that the data presented in the geospatial products was relevant to users\u0026rsquo; decision-making contexts\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. This example shows how user-centered design mechanisms can emerge organically and be selectively integrated into co-production in digital or software-based product development. It also suggests that more explicit, intentional user-centered design integration could further strengthen the SCA Tool\u0026rsquo;s usefulness, usability, and impact. Viewed through the integration framework, the developers could have more explicitly incorporated user-centered design by first deepening their familiarity with user-centered design and clarifying how it could support their desired outcomes. With this foundation, they would have been better positioned to determine which user-centered design mechanisms to selectively apply at different stages of their process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eA co-production approach to developing user-driven climate adaptation products that are salient, legitimate, and credible can be further strengthened with the integration of user-centered design. By employing either a selective or holistic integration, guided by an integration framework, user-centered design expands the possibilities and configurability of co-production by offering additional processes, mechanisms, and practices for developers. For developers new to co-production or focused on creating digital or software-based climate adaptation products, this Analysis offers a conceptual grounding in the processes, mechanisms, and practices associated with co-production approaches to product development and user-centered design. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough integrating user-centered design within co-production offers considerable potential, some open questions and limitations remain. Systematic literature reviews, while valuable for structuring and synthesizing knowledge, face study design and methodological constraints. In this review, we encountered interpretive challenges from the broad and interdisciplinary nature of co-production and human-computer interaction, variability in findings, and the risk of publication bias. Beyond methodological issues, practical constraints such as limited resources and time can restrict the ability to implement comprehensive product development approaches or sustain ongoing iteration, collaboration, and maintenance\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e. Especially given the critical nature of climate change and the need for timely climate adaptation products, extended product development cycles or delays in product delivery can reduce the relevance and utility of even well-designed, user-focused products\u003csup\u003e4, 5, 18, 19\u003c/sup\u003e. Finally, questions remain about scalability and generalizability, particularly how well tailored products can transfer across different settings. These limitations are explored further in the Methods, along with details on how an integrated approach to product development, combining user-centered design and co-production, can proactively address these hurdles during the development process and help manage them over time. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith these gaps and opportunities in mind, we explore how bridging the fields of climate services and human-computer interaction, and leveraging their respective co-production and user-centered design approaches, can drive innovation in how we build user-driven climate adaptation products. Ultimately, by prioritizing user collaboration throughout the product development process, we can ensure that climate adaptation products not only deliver their intended impact but also fully realize their potential to address climate adaptation challenges.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eHere we describe our methods for mapping co-production and user-centered design in climate adaptation product development, focusing on processes, mechanisms, and best practices. We also provide background and review on climate services, user needs, human-computer interaction, and user-centered design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a systematic review of journal articles and white papers using five databases spanning climate services and human-computer interaction: ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Climate-ADAPT, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Searches were run July 25-26, 2023 across available database fields, including titles, abstracts, and full text, using terms targeting digital or software-based climate adaptation products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the co-production portion of the review, we used the following syntax, modified for each database\u0026rsquo;s search interface:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e(\u0026ldquo;climate service\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;climate information service\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;climate change service\u0026rdquo;) AND (adapt!) AND (software OR digital OR tech! OR web! OR app!)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the user-centered design portion of the review, few studies addressed climate products, so we expanded the search on July 26, 2023 to include environmental and sustainability-themed products. The following syntax was modified for each database\u0026rsquo;s search interface:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e(\u0026ldquo;human computer interaction\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;hci\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;user centered design\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;ucd\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;climate\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;sustainab!\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;environmental\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe search targeted articles published starting on January 1, 2005, with no defined end date. However, given the timing of the searches, the effective end date was July 26, 2023. We used the databases listed below with structured, reproducible queries, applying consistent search strings across platforms and across both review portions, except for the ISO database. Database-specific ranking and sorting settings:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScienceDirect:\u003c/strong\u003e Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACM Digital Library:\u003c/strong\u003e Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by recency (ranked by relevance with an additional penalty for older publications).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIEEE Xplore:\u003c/strong\u003e Advanced search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClimate-ADAPT:\u003c/strong\u003e Resource Catalogue search used with the specified strings; results sorted by relevance (ranked by how closely records matched the search terms).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eISO:\u003c/strong\u003eAdvanced search used; initial queries returned no results, so queries were broadened to identify relevant standards. The platform does not specify ranking criteria and does not allow sorting. Modified queries included:\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e(climate service OR climate information service OR climate change service) OR (climate adapt)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e(human computer interaction OR hci) OR (user centered design OR ucd)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter retrieval, abstracts were initially screened against inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were specifically designed as an initial quality filter, prioritizing studies of high relevance. Following this initial screening, duplicates were removed, and a secondary screening was conducted. During the secondary screening, each paper\u0026rsquo;s full text was read and reviewed against the inclusion criteria to ensure relevance, quality, and methodological rigor. Papers that were challenging to assess against the inclusion criteria were re-evaluated and assessed collaboratively with another author. Search syntax, screening methodology, and inclusion criteria were reviewed by all authors. For the co-production portion, we applied the following inclusion criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is focused on one or multiple of the following themes:\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuilding climate adaptation products\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLessons in or best practices for building climate adaptation products\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUser needs for climate adaptation products\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper mentions digital or software-based technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is published in or after 2005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is in English\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the user-centered design portion, we applied the following inclusion criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is focused on one or multiple of the following themes:\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuilding climate, sustainability, or environmental products\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUser-centered design mechanisms\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLessons in or best practices for user-centered design\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper mentions digital or software-based technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is published in or after 2005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaper is in English\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing this process, 45 papers remained in the final database for the co-production portion of the review, published between 2016 and 2023 (inclusive) (Extended Data Table 5). In contrast, 35 papers remained in the final database for the user-centered design portion, published between 2005 and 2023 (inclusive) (Extended Data Table 6). The literature search and screening process is summarized in a flow diagram (Methods Fig. 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cstrong\u003eMethods Fig. 1 | Flow diagram of study identification, screening and inclusion\u003c/strong\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoding and analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the final 80 papers, we selected representative co-production and user-centered design processes based on design quality, stage clarity, and consistency with the broader literature. We then examined the papers for (1) mechanisms used in climate product development and (2) practices that contributed to, or were reported as supporting, product or process success. Similar mechanisms and practices were grouped within each corpus and mapped to the relevant stages of the selected co-production or user-centered design process (for full lists of mechanisms and practices, see Extended Data Tables 1-4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this review, we apply \u0026ldquo;mechanism\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;practice\u0026rdquo; broadly to capture as many elements as possible that were used, relevant, or considered useful for climate adaptation product development. This inclusive framing reflects the diversity found in the literature, where mechanisms and best practices are not always consistently labeled or defined but are nonetheless integral to product development processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Mechanism\u0026rdquo; refers to the structured means by which product development is carried out. For further clarity, mechanisms can be distinguished between three types: artifact (for example, affinity diagram), activity (for example, interview), or actor (for example, knowledge broker). An \u0026ldquo;artifact\u0026rdquo; is a tangible output or tool that guides or results from the product development process. An \u0026ldquo;activity\u0026rdquo; is a structured engagement or procedure used to gather insights or test ideas. An \u0026ldquo;actor\u0026rdquo; is a person or group who participates in or supports the process. All mechanisms are categorized into one of these three types (for more details, see Extended Data). This typology is intended as a practical categorization to aid interpretation, recognizing that in practice the boundaries between these three types of mechanisms are often fuzzy rather than rigid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practice\u0026rdquo; refers to any recurring activity, behavior, or procedural action that contributes to or supports product development. Practices range from high-level process elements (for example, defining roles) to applied and operational actions (for example, developing multiple prototypes). This broad categorization reflects the practical and conceptual variety of strategies used in the development of climate adaptation products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations shape the findings of this review. In study design and methodology, we faced interpretive challenges, and some differences between co-production and user-centered design may reflect terminology rather than fundamental distinctions. Given the interdisciplinary nature of human-computer interaction and the flexible, case-specific application of co-production, comparable mechanisms and practices may be described differently across fields. For example, workshops, interviews, user assessments, and prototyping techniques may be labeled differently in climate services versus human-computer interaction literature. This creates interpretive challenges and suggests that apparent differences between co-production and user-centered design may be smaller than they seem. Although our goal was to capture a wide range of mechanisms and practices as a developer-facing reference, this breadth is a limitation and warrants further clarification. Even so, user-centered design offers tested mechanisms that can strengthen climate adaptation product development, particularly for digital and software-based products. For example, user-centered design includes mature, widely used mechanisms that can support a more structured and rigorous product development process, such as context-of-use, user requirements specification, user testing, and usability metrics. These kinds of mechanisms could offer a way to introduce methodological diversity, practicality, and structure into co-production processes, potentially helping to translate user needs into more testable, design-oriented outputs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, study findings may vary due to search timing, inclusion criteria, and the human screening and mapping process. These factors could introduce heterogeneity, as different reviewers might interpret the inclusion criteria or classify mechanisms and practices in varying ways. However, we identified these potential sources of variation during the review process and consulted additional researchers to validate both the approach and the quality of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother methodological limitation is potential publication bias, as the peer-reviewed literature skews toward studies with positive results. To mitigate publication bias and diversify sources, we included Climate-ADAPT and ISO white papers alongside peer-reviewed studies. Finally, limiting searches to five databases may have missed relevant academic or grey literature, potentially omitting additional processes, mechanisms, practices, or cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are also practical limitations of pursuing an integrated approach to product development as well. For instance, determining the minimum requirements for developing a user-driven climate adaptation product can be challenging, as necessary processes, mechanisms, and practices depend on the context. Similarly, funding or time constraints can limit the ability to implement an extensive product development approach. Time- and budget-planning across product development stages, paired with lower-cost engagement mechanisms (for example, remote interactions) and time-bound goals, can help mitigate these constraints\u003csup\u003e5, 18, 51\u003c/sup\u003e. To maintain co-production and user-centered design benefits while accelerating timelines, agile, modular approaches can gather feedback quickly and deliver functional prototypes earlier\u003csup\u003e16, 36, 52\u003c/sup\u003e. In particularly time-sensitive contexts such as disaster preparedness or narrow policy windows, prioritizing climate adaptation products that are delivered quickly and are \u0026ldquo;good enough\u0026rdquo; may be more effective than pursuing more refined but time-intensive tools. In the long run, user-driven product development may even save time by using early prototyping and testing to ensure products are usable and successful from launch\u003csup\u003e50\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese constraints also intersect with questions of scalability and generalizability. While many user-driven climate adaptation products are designed for specific user contexts, it remains an open question how well these tailored solutions can scale or transfer across different settings. However, integrating user-centered design into co-production may generate reusable approaches, design insights, or templates that support extension to new or adjacent contexts. User-centered design mechanisms such as context-of-use documentation and user requirements specifications can facilitate this process by providing structured insights into the original product\u0026rsquo;s user group, decision environment, and contextual conditions, forming a basis for modifying the product to other settings\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClimate services background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClimate services encompass the development and dissemination of climate adaptation products and other climate-related tools. Since emerging a few decades ago, the field has grown through initiatives such as the World Meteorological Organization\u0026rsquo;s Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), national climate services centers, and promotion by organizations including the European Union\u003csup\u003e13, 14, 29\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough definitions and terminology vary, climate services generally refer to the use and tailoring of climate information to support decision-making on adaptation, mitigation, and other climate-related topics\u003csup\u003e1, 2, 19, 30, 53, 54\u003c/sup\u003e. Climate services are often framed as the production, translation, and transfer of climate information, with an emphasis on usable, actionable, and tailored information for decision-makers\u003csup\u003e11, 25\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor climate adaptation products, in particular, the information the products contain, use, or deliver can include shorter-term weather data, longer-term climate data, physical measurements, climate impact variables, expert advice, and more\u003csup\u003e2, 25, 43\u003c/sup\u003e. Climate adaptation products can also span timescales from sub-seasonal to decadal and delivery mediums from fully digital and software-based products to non-digital formats\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. These products can support decisions in areas such as climate risk and impact assessment, planning and infrastructure, and resource management\u003csup\u003e16, 55-57\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite their intent, climate adaptation products often fall short of practical user needs and the urgency of current climate risks\u003csup\u003e29, 44\u003c/sup\u003e. Many products fail to deliver timely, decision-relevant insights, limiting their value for adaptation action\u003csup\u003e5, 23, 29\u003c/sup\u003e. As warming thresholds are surpassed, there is a growing need for product development approaches that help users interpret diverse climate information and support long-term as well as immediate and near-term adaptation decisions\u003csup\u003e1, 12, 19, 20, 23, 54\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUser needs background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeeting user needs for climate adaptation requires addressing numerous aspects. There is the aspect of uncertainty in future climate conditions and the need for scientific expertise to interpret projections and results, alongside the need to understand adaptive capacity across organizational and governance scales\u003csup\u003e1, 13, 19, 58\u003c/sup\u003e. There is the breadth of short- and long-term adaptation options and how they interact with broader societal and environmental dynamics\u003csup\u003e56, 57\u003c/sup\u003e. There is the need to understand user context and the challenge of navigating multi-stakeholder decision-making with competing interests\u003csup\u003e13, 28\u003c/sup\u003e. And there is the need for timely delivery to support decisions under urgent or rapidly evolving climate conditions\u003csup\u003e4, 5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo surmount these complexities and build efficacious climate adaptation products, the climate services literature typically emphasizes core tenets of salience (relevance), credibility (quality and dependability), and legitimacy (impartiality and fairness)\u003csup\u003e5, 8, 19, 30, 43, 58-60\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSalience underscores that one-size-fits-all, supply-driven information is often ineffective because user groups need different types of information\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e. For climate adaptation products, this means tailoring information and delivery to ensure it is relevant to the decisions it will inform\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e. Salience can also involve adjusting spatial and temporal scales to fit decision context, using clear prose or visuals, tailoring the level of detail to help users absorb information, linking information to local contexts through customized metrics, and using stories that resonate with users\u0026rsquo; livelihoods\u003csup\u003e42, 61-65\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCredibility centers on information quality and whether users trust a product\u0026rsquo;s results\u003csup\u003e8, 42\u003c/sup\u003e. For climate adaptation products using weather forecasts or climate projections, credibility depends on clearly communicating uncertainty so users\u0026rsquo; expectations for future scenarios are aligned with what the information can support\u003csup\u003e8, 63\u003c/sup\u003e. Credibility can also involve using trusted data sources, documenting assumptions and methods, adhering to data and metadata standards, implementing quality assurance, and tailoring communication about confidence and uncertainty\u003csup\u003e3, 25, 26, 43, 62\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegitimacy involves aligning with users\u0026rsquo; standards, values, and norms and maintaining transparency in the process\u003csup\u003e8, 26, 63\u003c/sup\u003e. For climate adaptation products, legitimacy depends on respecting user views and feedback to build mutual trust between developers and users\u003csup\u003e36, 63\u003c/sup\u003e. Legitimacy can also involve adhering to national and global standards, incorporating feedback, tracing results to reliable sources, following agreed work plans, aligning with local knowledge and values, and communicating transparently\u003csup\u003e8, 25, 26, 44, 63, 66\u003c/sup\u003e. Salience, credibility, and legitimacy are interconnected and rely on sustained dialogue and collaboration between developers and users\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e. These criteria provide a benchmark for how to pursue a demand-driven model for climate adaptation product development and build products that are more likely to meet users\u0026rsquo; needs, be used by decision-makers, and influence adaptation action\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCo-production background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClimate services literature often advocates for co-production, a wide-ranging theory of research engagement, interaction, and collaboration, to build salient, credible, and legitimate products and help close the usability gap\u003csup\u003e5, 6, 18, 29, 31, 34, 36, 64\u003c/sup\u003e. Co-production is typically described as the integration of diverse knowledge, experiences, and practices to foster mutual learning and develop new ideas, products, processes, or outcomes\u003csup\u003e6, 67, 68\u003c/sup\u003e. It often integrates participatory approaches, including related \u0026lsquo;co-\u0026rsquo; terms such as co-design and co-development\u003csup\u003e6, 29, 31, 34, 61, 64, 69\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-production spans disciplines beyond climate services, with roots in participatory development, public services administration, and science, technology, and policy, and is conceptualized differently across fields\u003csup\u003e5, 18\u003c/sup\u003e. Even within climate services, co-production lacks a standardized approach\u003csup\u003e13, 16, 29, 30\u003c/sup\u003e. While recent discussions have explored the potential for greater standardization in the development and delivery of climate services\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e, co-production is still widely understood as a guiding framework that is case-dependent and shaped by the specific purpose, users, and decision-making environment\u003csup\u003e5, 13, 16, 29, 31, 34, 36\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHuman-computer interaction background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman-computer interaction emerged in the 1980s to improve the interface between users and computers\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e. The interdisciplinary field aims to design systems that improve interactions among users, tasks, tools, and environments\u003csup\u003e70\u003c/sup\u003e. To guide this aim, human-computer interaction draws on psychology, emphasizing user cognition, perception, mental models, and attention\u003csup\u003e50\u003c/sup\u003e. In summary, human-computer interaction strives to build usable products and positive user experiences, often through usability principles and user-centered design\u003csup\u003e33, 50\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsability is the degree to which a user can utilize a product to meet specified goals within a particular context\u003csup\u003e71\u003c/sup\u003e. The theory reflects how well users can achieve goals with effectiveness (goals achieved completely and accurately), efficiency (goals achieved in a timely manner), and satisfaction (goals achieved with comfort and positive emotions)\u003csup\u003e32, 39, 71, 72\u003c/sup\u003e. More recently, usability has expanded to include learnability, accessibility, maintainability, recognizability, and operability\u003csup\u003e33, 71\u003c/sup\u003e. User-centered design is frequently cited in human-computer interaction as an approach that can improve and help realize usability\u003csup\u003e32, 46, 73\u003c/sup\u003e. In fact, usability is a core criterion for evaluating the success of a user-centered design process\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUser-centered design background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUser-centered design, often referred to as human-centered design, is a design approach and methodology focused on developing products that meet user needs\u003csup\u003e32, 38, 39\u003c/sup\u003e. It can be viewed as a framework, craft, or philosophy, but regardless of its classification, user-centered design emphasizes placing users at the center of the product development process and understanding their characteristics, needs, wants, and limitations\u003csup\u003e8, 45\u003c/sup\u003e. Key principles of this approach include ideation, prototyping, iteration, validation, usability, utility, and verification\u003csup\u003e32, 39, 50, 73, 74\u003c/sup\u003e. Given its foundation in usability and user experience, user-centered design is widely applied in developing websites, software applications, and other digital or software-based products\u003csup\u003e32, 75, 76\u003c/sup\u003e. Similar to co-production approaches to product development, user-centered design emphasizes user interaction and aims to build products that are useful, usable, and used\u003csup\u003e10, 50\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough user-centered design is well established in human-computer interaction and aligns with co-production principles, it is one of several user-engagement traditions in the field\u003csup\u003e77, 78\u003c/sup\u003e. Other approaches such as participatory design, co-design, critical design, and design and emotion reflect different conceptualizations of the developer-user relationship and offer alternative frameworks for user involvement\u003csup\u003e77, 78\u003c/sup\u003e. We focus on user-centered design because it is methodologically mature, stage-structured, and centered on usability and iteration, closely paralleling co-production and offering an accessible entry point for developers less familiar with human-computer interaction\u003csup\u003e2, 38, 73, 75, 78\u003c/sup\u003e. At the same time, critiques of user-centered design also note how it can position users too passively or narrowly\u003csup\u003e78, 79\u003c/sup\u003e. In sustainable human-computer interaction, which applies a critical environmental lens to product and systems design, some argue that user-centered design\u0026rsquo;s human-centeredness can overlook ecological systems and non-human actors\u003csup\u003e79-82\u003c/sup\u003e. Given our focus on digital and software-based climate adaptation products, user-centered design offers a pragmatic, well-documented foundation for integration, while future work can examine how other human-computer interaction approaches, particularly sustainability-oriented ones, might further extend these processes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is a systematic review of published literature. All data supporting the findings of this review are publicly available in those sources, which are described in the Methods and listed in the Extended Data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank Nancy Freitas, Kripa Jagannathan, and Brian L. Trelstad for their valuable review and feedback on the ideas for this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN.A.C. led the study, including the literature search and systematic review. N.A.C. conducted the searches, gathered articles, screened articles, and extracted and categorized mechanisms and best practices from articles, with additional review and support from A.D.J. All co-authors reviewed the final results. N.A.C. drafted the manuscript, and all co-authors contributed to reviewing, commenting on, and revising the text.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAdditional information\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondence should be addressed to N. A. Chaudhry.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMain text references\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLouren\u0026ccedil;o, T. C., Swart, R., Goosen, H. \u0026amp; Street, R. The rise of demand-driven climate services. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;14 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRigby, J. M. \u0026amp; Preist, C. Towards user-centred climate services: the role of human-computer interaction, 1\u0026ndash;14 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHewitt, C. D. \u0026amp; Stone, R. Climate services for managing societal risks and opportunities. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J. \u0026amp; Ramprasad, V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 789\u0026ndash;794 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVincent, K., Daly, M., Scannell, C. \u0026amp; Leathes, B. What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 48\u0026ndash;58 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleming, A. et al. Perceptions of co-design, co-development and co-delivery (co-3d) as part of the co-production process \u0026ndash; insights for climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSesser, A. L. et al. Co-producing decision support tools for strategic conservation of Gulf Coast landscapes. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Research in Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrainger, S., Mao, F. \u0026amp; Buytaert, W. Environmental data visualisation for non-scientific contexts: Literature review and design framework. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Modelling and Software\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e85\u003c/strong\u003e, 299\u0026ndash;318 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, M. S. Accelerating innovation in climate services: The 3 E\u0026rsquo;s for climate service providers. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of the American Meteorological Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e94\u003c/strong\u003e, 807\u0026ndash;819 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristel, I. et al. Introducing design in the development of effective climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 111\u0026ndash;121 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarnet, A. F. et al. Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in european destinations. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBevacqua, E., Schleussner, C.-F. \u0026amp; Zscheischler, J. A year above 1.5\u0026deg;C signals that Earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the Paris Agreement limit. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 262\u0026ndash;265 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02246-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuhari, M., Dressel, M. \u0026amp; Schuck-Z\u0026ouml;ller, S. Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarjanne, A. Servitizing climate science\u0026mdash;institutional analysis of climate services discourse and its implications. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;16 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFindlater, K., Webber, S., Kandlikar, M. \u0026amp; Donner, S. Climate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 731\u0026ndash;737 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerrado, M. et al. Co-production pathway of an end-to-end climate service for improved decision-making in the wine sector. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaulenas, E. et al. User selection and engagement for climate services coproduction. \u003cem\u003eWeather, Climate, and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 381\u0026ndash;392 (2023). URL https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/15/2/WCAS-D-22-0112.1.xml.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVincent, K. et al. Co-production: Learning from Contexts, 37\u0026ndash;56 (Springer International Publishing, 2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61160-6_3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrasseur, G. P. \u0026amp; Gallardo, L. Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. \u003cem\u003eEarth\u0026rsquo;s Future\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 79\u0026ndash;89 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBessembinder, J. et al. Need for a common typology of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, D. S. \u0026amp; Jacob, D. From participatory to inclusive climate services for enhancing societal uptake. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePimentel, R. et al. Improving the usability of climate services for the water sector: The aquaclew experience. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoon, E., Wright, S. J., Biesbroek, R., Goosen, H. \u0026amp; Ludwig, F. Successful climate services for adaptation: What we know, don\u0026rsquo;t know and need to know. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaughan, C., Dessai, S. \u0026amp; Hewitt, C. Surveying climate services: What can we learn from a bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye view? \u003cem\u003eWeather, Climate, and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 373\u0026ndash;395 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBouroncle, C. et al. A systematic approach to assess climate information products applied to agriculture and food security in guatemala and colombia. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlair, B., Gierisch, A. M., Jeuring, J., Olsen, S. M. \u0026amp; Lamers, M. Mind the gap! a consensus analysis of users and producers on trust in new sea ice information products. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHowarth, C., Lane, M., Morse-Jones, S., Brooks, K. \u0026amp; Viner, D. The \u0026lsquo;co\u0026rsquo; in co-production of climate action: Challenging boundaries within and between science, policy and practice. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e72\u003c/strong\u003e, 102445 (2022). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021002247.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLabonnote, N., \u0026Aring;shild Lappegard Hauge \u0026amp; Sivertsen, E. A climate services perspective on norwegian stormwater-related databases. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 33\u0026ndash;41 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBremer, S. et al. Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 42\u0026ndash;50 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoblas-Reyes, F. J. et al. Standardisation of equitable climate services by supporting a community of practice. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e, 100520 (2024). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240588072400075X.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBojovic, D. et al. Engagement, involvement and empowerment: Three realms of a coproduction framework for climate services. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e68\u003c/strong\u003e, 102271 (2021). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021000509.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalinas, E., Cueva, R. \u0026amp; Paz, F. A Systematic Review of User-Centered Design Techniques, 253\u0026ndash;267 (Springer, Cham, 2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbert, A., Gershon, N. D. \u0026amp; van der Veer, G. C. Human-computer interaction: Introduction and overview. \u003cem\u003eKI - Kunstliche Intelligenz\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e, 121\u0026ndash;126 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorstr\u0026ouml;m, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, 182\u0026ndash;190 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChambers, J. M. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 983\u0026ndash;996 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeset, T. S. et al. Co-designing a citizen science climate service. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoshi, S., Nistala, P. V., Jani, H., Sakhardande, P. \u0026amp; Dsouza, T. User-centered design journey for pattern development, Vol. Part F132091, 1\u0026ndash;19 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuhrmann, S. User-centered design for geoinformation technologies, 438\u0026ndash;445 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eISO standard 9241-210 ergonomics of human\u0026ndash;system interaction \u0026mdash; part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartinez, G. et al. Societal local and regional resiliency spurred by contextualized climate services: The role of culture in co-production. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClifford, K. R., Travis, W. R. \u0026amp; Nordgren, L. T. A climate knowledges approach to climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuontempo, C. et al. What have we learnt from euporias climate service prototypes? \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 21\u0026ndash;32 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwart, R. J. et al. Developing climate information portals with users: Promises and pitfalls. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 12\u0026ndash;22 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJevne, F. L., \u0026Aring;shild Lappegard Hauge \u0026amp; Thomassen, M. K. User evaluation of a national web portal for climate change adaptation \u0026ndash; a qualitative case study of the knowledge bank. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, A. User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design: A review of three methods for designing web applications, 1\u0026ndash;8 (ACM, 2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W. \u0026amp; Carey, T. The state of user-centered design practice. \u003cem\u003eCommunications of the ACM\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. \u0026amp; Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 15\u0026ndash;21 (2020). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343519301010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E. \u0026amp; W\u0026aring;gs\u0026aelig;ther, K. L. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. \u003cem\u003eNature Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 877\u0026ndash;878 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00910-w.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrategic Conservation Assessment of Gulf Coast Landscapes (2024). https://www.quest.fwrc.msstate.edu/sca-project.php [Accessed 10 Dec 2024].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZulkafli, Z. et al. User-driven design of decision support systems for polycentric environmental resources management. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Modelling and Software\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e88\u003c/strong\u003e, 58\u0026ndash;73 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods references\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"51\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLemos, M. C. et al. The closer, the better? untangling scientist\u0026ndash;practitioner engagement, interaction, and knowledge use. \u003cem\u003eWeather, Climate, and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 535 \u0026ndash; 548 (2019). URL https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/11/3/wcas-d-18-0075 1.xml.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalacin, V. et al. Sensei: Harnessing community wisdom for local environmental monitoring in finland, 1\u0026ndash;8 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcGinnis, S. \u0026amp; Mearns, L. Building a climate service for north america based on the na-cordex data archive. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaughan, C., Buja, L., Kruczkiewicz, A. \u0026amp; Goddard, L. Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;74 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eISO 14091 adaptation to climate change\u0026mdash;guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCortekar, J., Bender, S., Brune, M. \u0026amp; Groth, M. Why climate change adaptation in cities needs customised and flexible climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 42\u0026ndash;51 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoffmann, J. et al. Destination earth \u0026ndash; a digital twin in support of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e, 100394 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaughan, C. \u0026amp; Dessai, S. Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. \u003cem\u003eWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 587\u0026ndash;603 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniels, E., Bharwani, S., ˚Asa Gerger Swartling, Vulturius, G. \u0026amp; Brandon, K. Refocusing the climate services lens: Introducing a framework for co-designing \u0026ldquo;transdisciplinary knowledge integration processes\u0026rdquo; to build climate resilience. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVisscher, K. et al. Matching supply and demand: A typology of climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCantone, C., Grape, H. I., Habash, S. E. \u0026amp; Pechlivanidis, I. G. A co-generation success story: Improving drinking water management through hydro-climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoesten, L. \u0026amp; Simperl, E. Ux of data: Making data available doesn\u0026rsquo;t make it usable. \u003cem\u003eInteractions\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 97\u0026ndash;99 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarku, R., Slobbe, E. V., Termeer, K., Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G. \u0026amp; Dewulf, A. Usability of weather information services for decision-making in farming: Evidence from the ada east district, ghana. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaparrizos, S. et al. Hydro-climate information services for smallholder farmers: Farmersupport app principles, implementation, and evaluation. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGinige, A., Romano, M., Sebillo, M., Vitiello, G. \u0026amp; Giovanni, P. D. Spatial data and mobile applications \u0026ndash; general solutions for interface design, 189\u0026ndash;196 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuontempo, C. et al. Fostering the development of climate services through copernicus climate change service (c3s) for agriculture applications. \u003cem\u003eWeather and Climate Extremes\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\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\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, U., Werners, S. E., Paparrizos, S., Datta, D. K. \u0026amp; Ludwig, F. Co-producing climate information services with smallholder farmers in the lower bengal delta: How forecast visualization and communication support farmers\u0026rsquo; decision-making. \u003cem\u003eClimate Risk Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBremer, S., Wardekker, A., Jensen, E. S. \u0026amp; van der Sluijs, J. P. Quality assessment in co-developing climate services in norway and the netherlands. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Climate\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e (2021). URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.627665.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackel, B. Usability - context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. \u003cem\u003eInteracting with Computers\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 339\u0026ndash;346 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBevan, N., Carter, J., Earthy, J., Geis, T. \u0026amp; Harker, S. New ISO standards for usability, usability reports and usability measures, Vol. 9731, 268\u0026ndash;278 (Springer Verlag, 2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, M. et al. Usability of geographic information: Current challenges and future directions. \u003cem\u003eApplied Ergonomics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e44\u003c/strong\u003e, 855\u0026ndash;865 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, A. C. et al. Beescape: Characterizing user needs for environmental decision support in beekeeping. \u003cem\u003eEcological Informatics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e64\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarcena-Vazquez, J., Caro, K., Bermudez, K. \u0026amp; Zatarain-Aceves, H. Designing and evaluating reto global, a serious video game for supporting global warming awareness. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e177\u003c/strong\u003e, 103080 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBosello, M., Delnevo, G. \u0026amp; Mirri, S. On exploiting gamification for the crowdsensing of air pollution: A case study on a bicycle-based system, 205\u0026ndash;210 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhatt, U. et al. Uncertainty as a form of transparency: Measuring, communicating, and using uncertainty, 401\u0026ndash;413 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSanders, L. An evolving map of design practice and design research. \u003cem\u003eInteractions\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;17 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSanders, E. B.-N. \u0026amp; Stappers, P. J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. \u003cem\u003eCoDesign\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 5\u0026ndash;18 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScuri, S., Ferreira, M., Nunes, N. J., Nisi, V. \u0026amp; Mulligan, C. Hitting the triple bottom line: Widening the hci approach to sustainability (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517518.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHansson, L., Pargman, T. C. \u0026amp; Pargman, D. A decade of sustainable hci: Connecting shci to the sustainable development goals, 1\u0026ndash;19 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiSalvo, C., Sengers, P. \u0026amp; Brynjarsd\u0026acute;ottir, H. Mapping the landscape of sustainable hci, 1975 \u0026ndash; 1984 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Almeida Neris, V. P., da Hora Rodrigues, K. R. \u0026amp; Lima, R. F. A systematic review of sustainability and aspects of human-computer interaction, Vol. 8512, 742\u0026ndash;753 (Springer International Publishing, 2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarr, E. R. \u0026amp; Onzere, S. N. Really effective (for 15% of the men): Lessons in understanding and addressing user needs in climate services from Mali. \u003cem\u003eClimate Risk Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e, 82\u0026ndash;95 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGubler, S. et al. Twinning senamhi and meteoswiss to co-develop climate services for the agricultural sector in peru. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026acute;anchez-Garc\u0026acute;ıa, E. et al. Co-design of sectoral climate services based on seasonal prediction information in the mediterranean. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBachelet, D. et al. Climate consoles: Pieces in the puzzle of climate change adaptation. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 36\u0026ndash;43 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVollstedt, B., Koerth, J., Tsakiris, M., Nieskens, N. \u0026amp; Vafeidis, A. T. Co-production of climate services: A story map for future coastal flooding for the city of flensburg. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDell\u0026rsquo;Aquila, A. et al. Monitoring climate related risk and opportunities for the wine sector: The med-gold pilot service. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCeglar, A. et al. Clisagri: An r package for agro-climate services. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVano, J. A. et al. Dos and don\u0026rsquo;ts for using climate change information for water resource planning and management: guidelines for study design. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHinkel, J. et al. Co-creating a coastal climate service to prioritise investments in erosion prevention and sea-level rise adaptation in the maldives. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVogel, J., Letson, D. \u0026amp; Herrick, C. A framework for climate services evaluation and its application to the caribbean agrometeorological initiative. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;76 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErvasti, M. et al. ishake: Mobile phones as seismic sensors \u0026ndash; user study findings, 43\u0026ndash;52 (ACM, 2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNunes, N. J., Nisi, V. \u0026amp; Rennert, K. Beeco - co-designing a game with children to promote environmental awareness - a case study, Vol. 07-12-May-2016, 718\u0026ndash;727 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOzenc, F. K., Cranor, L. F. \u0026amp; Morris, J. H. Adapt-a-ride: Understanding the dynamics of commuting preferences through an experience design framework (ACM, 2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalminen, J., Guan, K. W., Jung, S. G. \u0026amp; Jansen, B. Use cases for design personas: A systematic review and new frontiers, 1\u0026ndash;21 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, M., Nisi, V. \u0026amp; Nunes, N. Interactions with climate change: a data humanism design approach, 1325\u0026ndash;1338 (ACM, 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomani, L. A., Magalh\u0026tilde;aes, G., Bambini, M. D. \u0026amp; Evangelista, S. R. Improving digital ecosystems for agriculture: Users participation in the design of a mobile app for agrometeorological monitoring, 234\u0026ndash;241 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDegrossi, L. C., Abe, B. B., Albuquerque, J. P. D. \u0026amp; Fortes, R. P. D. M. Enhancing usability of a citizen observatory based on user-centered design, 294\u0026ndash;301 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephens, S. H. \u0026amp; Altamirano, A. Supporting community resilience to environmental hazards through user-centered design, 125\u0026ndash;129 (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrosby, A. et al. Designing ocean vision ai: An investigation of community needs for imaging-based ocean conservation, 1\u0026ndash;16 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrereton, M., Roe, P., Foth, M., Bunker, J. M. \u0026amp; Buys, L. Designing participation in agile ridesharing with mobile social software, 257\u0026ndash;260 (ACM, 2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEggeling, J., Rydenf\u0026uml;alt, C., Kingma, B., Toftum, J. \u0026amp; Gao, C. The usability of climapp: A personalized thermal stress warning tool. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVilarinho, T., Farshchian, B., Wienhofen, L. W., Franang, T. \u0026amp; Gulbrandsen, H. Combining persuasive computing and user centered design into an energy awareness system for smart houses, 32\u0026ndash;39 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiuliani, G., Nativi, S., Obregon, A., Beniston, M. \u0026amp; Lehmann, A. Spatially enabling the global framework for climate services: Reviewing geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data information. \u003cem\u003eClimate Services\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 44\u0026ndash;58 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 | Co-production stages for product development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDefinition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentify Actors \u0026amp; Build Partnerships\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecognize and gather stakeholders from multiple disciplines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-Explore Need\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderstand decision need and decisions that product can address\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-Develop Solution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuild product in collaboration with stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-Deliver Solution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistribute product to stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTest and refine product with stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes:\u003c/em\u003e Stage definitions draw on the Vincent et al. (2018) co-production approach\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 | User-centered design stages\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDefinition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlan Process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrepare project for user involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderstand Context\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentify the users, user needs, and user preferences and behaviors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecify User Requirements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentify and define user, business, and organizational goals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProduce Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuild initial to final products based on user needs and requirements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.9601%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluate Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76.0399%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTest products with users and get feedback\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes:\u003c/em\u003e Stage definitions draw on the ISO user-centered design approach\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"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":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Climate adaptation products have traditionally been developed using a supply-driven model reliant on available climate information, leading to usability gaps. To better meet user needs, the climate services field has recognized a need to shift towards a demand-driven model emphasizing co-production, that is, user-driven, scientifically informed products created through shared knowledge practices. However, co-production can be challenging, especially for researchers unfamiliar with the approach or for digital and software-based products with complex user needs. User-centered design, from the human-computer interaction field, offers a process that could complement co-production approaches to product development, yet its potential remains underexplored. Here we show how user-centered design can integrate into, and strengthen, co-production approaches for building user-driven climate adaptation products. Through a systematic review of co-production and user-centered design literature, we identify key processes, mechanisms, and best practices for both approaches. Our findings offer practical guidance for researchers and propose an integrated approach for developing climate adaptation products that are useful, usable, and used.","manuscriptTitle":"Building user-driven climate adaptation products","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-17 05:56:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5426878/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nature","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"16bc162e-6039-4d56-86be-97b7db40640a","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":62782308,"name":"Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Climate change"},{"id":62782309,"name":"Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Interdisciplinary studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-16T02:25:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-17 05:56:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5426878","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5426878","identity":"rs-5426878","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}