Modelling the interplay between sectoral power asymmetries and the use of climate services

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a system dynamics approach to model power asymmetries in climate services, useful for adaptation governance research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers practical recommendations for designing equitable climate services, including mapping sectoral power and ensuring balanced participation.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the importance of equitable prioritization in adaptation planning to avoid maladaptation and systemic vulnerabilities.

Effective climate adaptation requires the integration of equitable and evidence-based decision-making tools and data, such as climate services (CS) products. However, the development and use of CS products are often shaped by stakeholder power asymmetries, which can influence who benefits the most and who remains vulnerable. This study uses a system dynamic modelling approach to evaluate how these power imbalances affect sectoral outcomes and the overall sustainability of the human-environmental system. Using the island of Crete, Greece, as a case, we simulated three scenarios reflecting different configurations of CS prioritization across five key sectors: tourism, water, energy, transport, and agriculture. Results show that prioritizing a single dominant sector amplifies adaptation benefits for that sector but increases systemic vulnerabilities elsewhere. Equitable prioritization across sectors fosters more balanced power distributions and improved sustainability outcomes. The findings highlight the need to rethink stakeholder engagement frameworks, such as the Co-create, Co-design, and Co-produce approach, by embedding systems thinking and stakeholder inclusivity from the outset of CS development. This study underscores the critical role of transdisciplinary modelling in informing just and sustainable climate adaptation strategies. Practical Implications This study demonstrates that the effectiveness and fairness of climate services (CS) depend not only on technical quality but on who participates in their design and how power is distributed among sectors. The Crete case study shows that when CS co-creation is dominated by a single powerful sector, such as tourism, adaptation benefits become concentrated to that sector, while vulnerabilities increase in less influential sectors, particularly water management and agriculture. For practitioners, this highlights that power asymmetries are a practical design risk that must be addressed explicitly. The key lesson from Crete, therefore, is that climate services that prioritize dominant sectors can improve short-term efficiency but undermine system-wide resilience. Practitioners should therefore treat equitable participation as a core operational requirement, not an aspirational goal. Key recommendations for practitioners i. Map sectoral power at the outset of CS development: Model results show that unexamined power hierarchies shape adaptation outcomes. Practitioners should systematically identify which sectors control resources, data, and decision-making authority, and use this mapping to adjust participation rules during co-creation. ii. Ensure balanced, cross-sectoral participation: In Crete, only the equi-sector scenario, where all sectors had equal participatory weight, produced system-wide resilience gains. CS processes should therefore assign structured roles to less powerful but system-critical actors (e.g., smallholder farmers), rather than relying on voluntary or informal inclusion. iii. Use systems-based tools to reveal trade-offs before implementation: The Crete case shows how sectoral prioritization (e.g., tourism water use) can cascade into higher energy demand and food stress. System dynamics models and scenario simulations should be integrated into CS workflows to test alternative allocation strategies and identify unintended consequences early. iv. Design CS outputs for collective, not sector-specific, use: Practitioners should move beyond tailored products for individual sectors and instead develop shared indicators and dashboards that make cross-sector impacts visible (e.g., water–energy–food–tourism linkages). This supports informed negotiation rather than competition among sectors. v. Institutionalize iterative feedback and learning: The Crete living lab showed that stakeholder engagement improves relevance but requires sustained facilitation. CS should be embedded in adaptive governance cycles where user feedback, changing climate risks, and shifting sectoral roles are regularly reassessed. Broader relevance: For other tourism-dependent islands and Mediterranean regions, the Crete case underscores that resilience emerges from balancing sectoral interests within environmental limits. Practitioners who embed equity, systems thinking, and transparency into CS design can reduce maladaptation risks and ensure that climate services function as shared public goods rather than selective advantages.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2026.100694first seen 2026-08-03 04:43:33