Building user-driven climate adaptation products

Abstract Climate adaptation products have traditionally been developed using a supply-driven model reliant on available climate information, leading to usability gaps1,2,3,4. 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 practices1,2,3,4,5. However, co-production can be challenging, especially for researchers unfamiliar with the approach or for digital and software-based products with complex user needs2,5,6,7,8. User-centred design, from the human–computer interaction field, offers a process that could complement co-production approaches to product development, yet its potential remains underexplored2. Here we show how user-centred design can be integrated into, and strengthen, co-production approaches for building user-driven climate adaptation products. Through a systematic review of the co-production and user-centred 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. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access options Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription £17.99 / 30 days cancel any time Subscribe to this journal Receive 52 print issues and online access £199.00 per year only £3.83 per issue Buy this article - Purchase on SpringerLink - Instant access to the full article PDF. £ 29.95 Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout 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 Supplementary Information. Code availability No custom code was used in this study, and no code is associated with this work. References Lourenço, T. C., Swart, R., Goosen, H. & Street, R. The rise of demand-driven climate services. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 13–14 (2016). Rigby, J. M. & Preist, C. Towards user-centred climate services: the role of human–computer interaction. In CHI ’23: Proc. 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds Schmidt, A. et al.) 538 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023). Hewitt, C. D. & Stone, R. Climate services for managing societal risks and opportunities. Clim. Serv. 23, 100240 (2021). Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J. & Ramprasad, V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat. Clim. 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? Clim. Serv. 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. Clim. Serv. 30, 100364 (2023). Sesser, A. L. et al. Co-producing decision support tools for strategic conservation of Gulf Coast landscapes. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 4, 100156 (2022). Grainger, S., Mao, F. & Buytaert, W. Environmental data visualisation for non-scientific contexts: literature review and design framework. Environ. Model. Softw. 85, 299–318 (2016). Brooks, M. S. Accelerating innovation in climate services: the 3 E’s for climate service providers. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94, 807–819 (2013). Christel, I. et al. Introducing design in the development of effective climate services. Clim. Serv. 9, 111–121 (2018). Font Barnet, A. et al. Climate services for tourism: an applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in European destinations. Clim. Serv. 23, 100249 (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. Nat. Clim. Change 15, 262–265 (2025). Suhari, M., Dressel, M. & Schuck-Zöller, S. Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: a qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. Clim. Serv. 25, 100282 (2022). Harjanne, A. Servitizing climate science−institutional analysis of climate services discourse and its implications. Glob. Environ. Change 46, 1–16 (2017). Findlater, K., Webber, S., Kandlikar, M. & Donner, S. Climate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 731–737 (2021). Terrado, M. et al. Co-production pathway of an end-to-end climate service for improved decision-making in the wine sector. Clim. Serv. 30, 100347 (2023). Baulenas, E. et al. User selection and engagement for climate services coproduction. Weather Clim. Soc. 15, 381–392 (2023). Vincent, K. et al. in Climate Risk in Africa (eds Conway, D. & Vincent, K.) 37–56 (Springer, 2021). 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. Clim. Serv. 16, 100135 (2019). Williams, D. S. & Jacob, D. From participatory to inclusive climate services for enhancing societal uptake. Clim. Serv. 24, 100266 (2021). Pimentel, R. et al. Improving the usability of climate services for the water sector: the AQUACLEW experience. Clim. Serv. 28, 100329 (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. Clim. Serv. 27, 100314 (2022). Vaughan, C., Dessai, S. & Hewitt, C. Surveying climate services: what can we learn from a bird’s-eye view? Weather Clim. Soc. 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. Clim. Serv. 16, 100137 (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. Clim. Serv. 28, 100323 (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. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102445 (2022). Labonnote, N., Hauge, Å. L. & Sivertsen, E. A climate services perspective on Norwegian stormwater-related databases. Clim. Serv. 13, 33–41 (2019). Bremer, S. et al. Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. Clim. Serv. 13, 42–50 (2019). Doblas-Reyes, F. J. et al. Standardisation of equitable climate services by supporting a community of practice. Clim. Serv. 36, 100520 (2024). Bojovic, D. et al. Engagement, involvement and empowerment: three realms of a coproduction framework for climate services. Glob. Environ. Change 68, 102271 (2021). Salinas, E., Cueva, R. & Paz, F. in Design, User Experience, and Usability. Interaction Design (eds Marcus, A. & Rosenzweig, E.) 253–267 (Springer, 2020). Ebert, A., Gershon, N. D. & van der Veer, G. C. Human–computer interaction: introduction and overview. Kunstliche Intell. 26, 121–126 (2012). Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020). Chambers, J. M. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 983–996 (2021). Neset, T. S. et al. Co-designing a citizen science climate service. Clim. Serv. 24, 100273 (2021). Joshi, S., Nistala, P. V., Jani, H., Sakhardande, P. & Dsouza, T. User-centered design journey for pattern development. In EuroPLoP ’17: Proc 22nd European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 23 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017). Fuhrmann, S. in Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (ed. Huang, B.) 438–445 (Elsevier, 2018). ISO 9241-210:2019 - Ergonomics of Human–System Interaction: Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems (International Organization for Standardization, 2010). Martinez, G. et al. Societal local and regional resiliency spurred by contextualized climate services: the role of culture in co-production. Clim. Serv. 26, 100300 (2022). Clifford, K. R., Travis, W. R. & Nordgren, L. T. A climate knowledges approach to climate services. Clim. Serv. 18, 100155 (2020). Buontempo, C. et al. What have we learnt from EUPORIAS climate service prototypes? Clim. Serv. 9, 21–32 (2018). Swart, R. J. et al. Developing climate information portals with users: promises and pitfalls. Clim. Serv. 6, 12–22 (2017). Jevne, F. L., Hauge, Å. L. & Thomassen, M. K. User evaluation of a national web portal for climate change adaptation—a qualitative case study of the knowledge bank. Clim. Serv. 30, 100367 (2023). Williams, A. User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design: a review of three methods for designing web applications. In SIGDOC ’09: Proc. 27th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication 1–8 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2009). Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W. & Carey, T. The state of user-centered design practice. Commun. ACM 48, 105–109 (2005). Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21 (2020). Vincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E. & Wågsæther, K. L. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 877–878 (2020). QuEST Lab. Strategic Conservation Assessment of Gulf Coast Landscapes https://www.quest.fwrc.msstate.edu/sca-project.php (Mississippi State Univ., 2024). Zulkafli, Z. et al. User-driven design of decision support systems for polycentric environmental resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 88, 58–73 (2017). Lemos, M. C. et al. The closer, the better? Untangling scientist–practitioner engagement, interaction, and knowledge use. Weather Clim. Soc. 11, 535–548 (2019). Palacin, V. et al. Sensei: harnessing community wisdom for local environmental monitoring in Finland. In CHI EA ’19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CS01 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019). McGinnis, S. & Mearns, L. Building a climate service for North America based on the NA-CORDEX data archive. Clim. Serv. 22, 100233 (2021). Vaughan, C., Buja, L., Kruczkiewicz, A. & Goddard, L. Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. Clim. Serv. 4, 65–74 (2016). ISO 14091:2021 - Adaptation to Climate Change—Guidelines on Vulnerability, Impacts and Risk Assessment (International Organization for Standardization, 2021). Cortekar, J., Bender, S., Brune, M. & Groth, M. Why climate change adaptation in cities needs customised and flexible climate services. Clim. Serv. 4, 42–51 (2016). Hoffmann, J. et al. Destination Earth—a digital twin in support of climate services. Clim. Serv. 30, 100394 (2023). Vaughan, C. & Dessai, S. Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 587–603 (2014). Daniels, E., Bharwani, S., Swartling, Å. G., Vulturius, G. & Brandon, K. Refocusing the climate services lens: introducing a framework for co-designing “transdisciplinary knowledge integration processes” to build climate resilience. Clim. Serv. 19, 100181 (2020). Visscher, K. et al. Matching supply and demand: a typology of climate services. Clim. Serv. 17, 100136 (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. Clim. Serv. 31, 100399 (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. Clim. Serv. 25, 100275 (2022). Paparrizos, S. et al. Hydro-climate information services for smallholder farmers: FarmerSupport app principles, implementation, and evaluation. Clim. Serv. 30, 100387 (2023). Ginige, A., Romano, M., Sebillo, M., Vitiello, G. & Di Giovanni, P. Spatial data and mobile applications—general solutions for interface design. In AVI ’12: Proc. International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (eds Tortora, G. et al.) 189–196 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2012). Buontempo, C. et al. Fostering the development of climate services through Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) for agriculture applications. Weather Clim. Extrem. 27, 100226 (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. Clim. Serv. 26, 100297 (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. Clim. Risk Manag. 33, 100346 (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. Front. Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.627665 (2021). Shackel, B. Usability—context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interact. Comput. 21, 339–346 (2009). Bevan, N., Carter, J., Earthy, J., Geis, T. & Harker, S. in Human–Computer Interaction: Theory, Design, Development and Practice (ed. Kurosu, M.) 268–278 (Springer, 2016). Brown, M. et al. Usability of geographic information: current challenges and future directions. Appl. Ergon. 44, 855–865 (2013). Robinson, A. C. et al. Beescape: characterizing user needs for environmental decision support in beekeeping. Ecol. Inform. 64, 101366 (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. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 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. In GoodTechs ’20: Proc. 6th EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good 205–210 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020). Bhatt, U. et al. Uncertainty as a form of transparency: measuring, communicating, and using uncertainty. In AIES ’21: Proc. 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 401–413 (Association for Computing Machinery, 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. In CHI ’22: Proc. 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds Barbosa, S. et al.) 332 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022). Hansson, L., Pargman, T. C. & Pargman, D. A decade of sustainable HCI: connecting SHCI to the Sustainable Development Goals. In CHI ’21: Proc. 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 300 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021). DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P. & Brynjarsdóttir, H. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In CHI ’10: Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1975–1984 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2010). de Almeida Neris, V. P., da Hora Rodrigues, K. R. & Lima, R. F. in Human–Computer Interaction: Applications and Services (ed. Kurosu, M.) 742–753 (Springer, 2014). Acknowledgements We thank N. Freitas, K. Jagannathan and B. L. Trelstad for their review and feedback on the ideas for this paper. The work of D.A. was supported by the Wellcome Trust [227149/Z/23/Z]. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions N.A.C. led the study, including the literature search and systematic review. N.A.C. conducted the searches, gathered and screened articles, and extracted and categorized mechanisms and best practices from the literature. A.D.J. provided additional review and support for article screening and interpretation of findings. N.A.C., W.D.C., D.A. and A.D.J. reviewed the final results. N.A.C. drafted the paper. W.D.C., D.A. and A.D.J. reviewed, commented on and revised the paper. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Peer review Peer review information Nature thanks Dragana Bojovic, Shannon Klein and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available. Extended data figures and tables Extended Data 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. Supplementary information Supplementary Information (download DOCX ) This Supplementary Information file contains six supplementary tables cited in the main text and Methods that support the findings of this study. Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Chaudhry, N.A., Collins, W.D., Anthoff, D. et al. Building user-driven climate adaptation products. Nature 654, 337–342 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10555-y Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10555-y