Co-designing soft climate adaptation: citizen centred solutions across four European pilots

Climate change impacts in Europe are intensifying and disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. While adaptation strategies increasingly acknowledge the value of public participation and citizen science, there remains a gap in inclusive, evidence-based approaches that engage diverse citizen groups in shaping soft adaptation measures. This study examines a staged co-creation process implemented across four pilot regions (Aragón, Dresden, Malmö, Rome). Using a structured, adaptable sequence (stakeholder mapping, inception workshops, target-group focus groups, and multi-stakeholder co-creation) it engaged youth, working populations, multicultural communities, and citizens experiencing vulnerabilities to generate locally relevant, feasible, and just solutions. Thereafter, a cross-case synthesis of outputs across pilots and target groups was conducted. Results from cross-case analysis showed that participants converged on a recurrent suite of four soft adaptation measure typologies across sites and target groups: (1) inclusive, barrier-free, multilingual risk communication via trusted intermediaries and with non-alarmist framing; (2) education and capacity-building, embedding climate hazard literacy in schools and community venues (often through hands-on/citizen-science activities); (3) workplace adaptations, shifting from individual coping to shared responsibility; and (4) accessible cooling and warning services (climate shelters, hydration points, participatory cooling maps, early-warning and tailored alerts). These typologies reappeared across sites and target groups, but participants also specified context-dependent design features shaped by local climatic, physical, socio-cultural, and institutional conditions. Regarding the process, three features enabled effective outcomes: continuity (to build trust and iterate), socio-culturally tailored formats, and facilitation that lowered participation barriers. Key constraints were time and resource limits, coordination and responsibility gaps, communication accessibility issues, and representation gaps. The approach offers a practical example of how co-created proposals can be linked to implementation pathways (clarifying actors, resources and likely barriers) and how transferable procedures, including engagement sequences and transparent prioritisation steps, may be adapted to existing institutional roles and processes. Embedding such citizen engagement processes in municipal policy and budget cycles, and supporting low-cost, distributed actions through schools, workplaces, housing associations and civic partners, suggests one possible route towards more equitable, actionable climate adaptation.

1 Introduction

Across Europe, increasing impacts of climate change are already affecting daily life, with extreme heatwaves, droughts, floods, and other hazards threatening ecosystems, human health, and infrastructure. These events are projected to increase in frequency and severity in the coming future, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, low-income households, and people with disabilities (European Environment Agency, 2024; IPCC, 2022). Recognising these risks, recent European policy frameworks such as the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy (European Commission, 2021) and the Mission on Adaptation emphasise the urgency of accelerating locally grounded action that complements physical resilience with measures enhancing social cohesion, inclusivity, and equity in responding to climate risks (European Commission, 2021).

While “hard” adaptation measures (such as sea walls, flood defences, or shaded public infrastructure) remain essential, they typically require substantial investment, long-term political commitment, and may lock cities into rigid development trajectories (Biagini et al., 2014; IPCC, 2022). By contrast, “soft” adaptation measures, defined as non-structural, socially embedded responses such as awareness campaigns, behavioural change initiatives, governance reforms, and participatory planning, are more cost-effective, flexible and responsive to shifting climatic uncertainties (Biagini et al., 2014; European Commission, 2021). They are also better suited to addressing the social dimensions of vulnerability and to enhancing local ownership, inclusivity, and climate justice, which were central aims of this research’s participatory approach (Rutherford et al., 2020; Turek-Hankins et al., 2021). Co-created with communities, these measures tend to achieve greater acceptance and commitment to implementation (Turek-Hankins et al., 2021). Accordingly, this research focused on participatory processes with diverse target groups to co-create soft climate adaptation solutions that are locally relevant, feasible, and equitable, while also enabling transferable learning across European contexts. For this purpose, a practice-oriented definition of soft adaptation was adopted that, in addition to non-structural social and institutional measures, also includes low-cost or “light” physical measures where the primary emphasis is on social design, governance, and behaviour change (e.g., designating and communicating climate shelters, public hydration points, or shaded rest areas). The research used this operational scope because in the pilots the effectiveness of these measures depended mainly on participation, coordination, and everyday practices rather than on capital-intensive engineering, aligning with the project’s focus on feasible, non-structural options and with IPCC framings of institutional, behavioural, and cultural adaptation choices (IPCC, 2022).

Moreover, conventional planning processes frequently rely on expert-driven assessments, with limited space for diverse citizen perspectives, especially those of marginalised or groups that are “hard to reach.” This exclusion risks producing adaptation strategies that are less legitimate, and less responsive to local realities (Adger et al., 2009; Schlosberg et al., 2017). Research has shown that participatory and co-creative approaches can enhance not only the relevance but also the legitimacy, social acceptance, and eventual uptake of adaptation measures, because they expose locally specific risks, values, and feasibility constraints often missed by expert-only processes (Few et al., 2007; Ensor and Harvey, 2015). Beyond individual projects, synthesis studies have distilled principles of effective co-production that allow participatory approaches to be designed in ways that can also scale while retaining local fit, e.g., by being context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented, and interactive (Norström et al., 2020). Reviews of participation in environmental management similarly underline that clarity of purpose, early and continuous involvement, and skilled facilitation are decisive for positive outcomes (Reed, 2008).

However, global reviews of implemented adaptation highlight the limited evidence on how effective these measures are and whether they can be transferred across different contexts (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). Reviews of European adaptation practices show that participation and co-production can deliver important benefits in terms of relevance, legitimacy, and empowerment, but also carry risks of tokenism, power imbalances, and institutional lock-in, thus making it crucial to specify how processes are designed and how they might scale (Sartorius et al., 2024).

This study addresses three gaps frequently noted but seldom operationalised: (i) transparent, stepwise procedures that move from local stakeholder problem-framing to specific soft-measure proposals; (ii) cross-pilot comparability while allowing local tailoring; and (iii) explicit links between co-created measures and implementation pathways (actors, resources, barriers). We therefore assess a staged co-creation process across four pilots (Aragón, Spain; Dresden, Germany; Malmö, Sweden; and Rome, Italy) to examine how ideas were generated and prioritised, and what transferable solution typologies and engagement lessons emerged. It explores how co-created solutions reflected local priorities, the shared values that guided solution design (such as equity, feasibility, and justice), and the factors that enabled or constrained inclusive participation. The findings contribute to the literature on participatory governance in climate adaptation by offering empirical evidence on the design, facilitation, and transferability of citizen-centred adaptation processes. The paper first details the participatory research design and methods, emphasising how the four pilots engaged socially diverse groups through a staged co-creation process. It then presents the results, highlighting both locally specific and cross-cutting adaptation solutions as well as the guiding values identified by participants. The discussion interprets these findings in terms of methodological lessons for co-creation and their implications for governance, policy, and transferability. The conclusion reflects on the broader contribution of this approach to advancing just and citizen-centred climate adaptation.

2 Participatory research design and methods

2.1 Study design and context

This research, conducted within the Horizon Europe project Adaptation AGORA (2023–2025), employed a comparative, multi-case study design to examine the participatory co-creation of soft climate adaptation measures in four pilot regions in Europe: Aragón (Spain), Dresden (Germany), Malmö (Sweden), and Rome (Italy). They are located within the action areas of Adaptation AGORA partners to ensure strong institutional presence and the capacity to mobilise diverse local networks. Adaptation AGORA supports cities and communities engaged in the EU Mission on Adaptation by advancing good practices for citizen and stakeholder participation in adaptation decision-making. The four pilots serve as testbeds to design and evaluate knowledge co-production practices aimed at fostering climate resilience and climate justice. These sites were selected to capture a diversity of socio-economic, climatic, and governance contexts across Europe, thereby enabling cross-case learning while remaining sensitive to local characteristics. The selection balances Northern and Southern cases (Figure 1) as well as urban and rural–urban dynamics, while building on municipalities and regions already engaged in adaptation initiatives, such as Aragón’s regional climate change strategy 2030, Dresden’s award-winning Heat Resilient City project, Malmö’s resilience planning, and Rome’s municipal adaptation strategy (see Table 1). The focus in each region was on climate hazards that were prioritised locally, addressed through the co-creation of soft adaptation measures (IPCC, 2022).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Adaptation AGORA pilot regions.

Table 1

Table 1. Overview of the adaptation AGORA pilots.

Aragón in northeastern Spain faces semi-arid conditions, recurrent droughts, desertification risks, and complex rural–urban dynamics. These challenges threaten agriculture and rural livelihoods and are compounded by rising temperatures, more frequent heatwaves and wildfires, and declining water availability in rivers, reservoirs and irrigation systems (Adaptation AGORA, 2024). The Aragon Climate Change Strategy 2030 frames these impacts within a broader transition agenda, linking adaptation to the decarbonisation of the regional economy by promoting renewable energy, green jobs and circular-economy models, while addressing vulnerabilities linked to depopulation in rural areas, water-intensive production systems and social and economic inequalities in access to cooling, infrastructure and financial resources. Within this context, Zaragoza, the region’s largest urban centre, is increasingly exposed to urban heat island effects and pluvial flooding, heightening risks for elderly residents, low-income households and other vulnerable groups that have limited adaptive capacity (Gobierno de Aragón, 2019). Dresden is already experiencing rising temperatures with more frequent hot days and tropical nights, heavier winter precipitation, and drier summers that together drive heatwaves, heavy rainfall events, riverine and pluvial flooding, and drought pressures on surrounding agriculture and forestry. The city’s climate-adaptation concept focuses on three main hazard complexes: heat, heavy rainfall/flash floods, and drought. It defines fields of action around climate-resilient urban development (green and blue infrastructure, reduced soil sealing), climate-adapted buildings and housing, water management and flood protection, health and social care for vulnerable groups, and civil-protection and early-warning systems. Densely built districts such as Neustadt and Altstadt are particularly exposed to urban heat-island effects and poor air circulation. This together with social disparities and the growing share of elderly residents and other at-risk groups, create significant adaptation gaps in Dresden that require targeted measures in urban planning, infrastructure, occupational health, and public engagement (City of Dresden, 2019; Franke, 2015; LHD, 2025; REGKLAM, 2013).

Malmö, a fast-growing coastal city in southern Sweden, is exposed to interacting risks from extreme precipitation, sea-level rise and storm surges along its 43 km coastline, and increasingly frequent and intense heatwaves and droughts (City of Malmö, 2024). These hazards are amplified by a dense built environment dominated by hard surfaces and stormwater systems not designed for cloudburst-scale events. The city’s adaptation work also combines green and blue infrastructure and upgraded drainage to manage heavy rainfall, coastal and harbour-area planning for future sea-level rise, and targeted heat-health measures to protect those most at risk. At the same time, demographic growth, a rapidly increasing share of residents aged 80 and above, and pronounced socio-economic inequalities (with around 22% of residents living on low income and poverty twice as common among foreign-born residents) create uneven vulnerability to heat, flooding and infrastructure failures, while national and local adaptation frameworks still provide limited financial, legal and governance tools to systematically address social vulnerability and worker exposure (Barquet et al., 2024; City of Malmö, 2024; Swedish Expert Council for Climate Change Adaptation, 2022). Rome, with a vast territory that includes dense historic districts, peri-urban agricultural land and a highly exposed coastline, is increasingly affected by extreme heat, more erratic and intense rainfall, recurrent droughts and hydrogeological risks such as riverine and pluvial flooding. The proposed climate adaptation strategy (Roma Capitale, 2024) identifies water resources, urban settlements, infrastructures, cultural heritage, health, the socio-economic system, coastal and marine areas, agriculture and ecosystems as priority sectors, and promotes an ecosystem-based approach that combines urban greening, nature-based solutions, and climate-sensitive public-space design (including permeable pavements, ventilation corridors and water features) with targeted measures for the most vulnerable neighbourhoods and population groups. In this context, rapid temperature increases, ageing and fragmented infrastructure (e.g., sewerage and drainage networks), pressures on water supply, coastal erosion, and socio-economic inequalities (especially in densely built low-lying districts) create a complex pattern of vulnerability.

The methodological framework combined a participatory sequence with principles from participatory action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2008), highlighting the involvement of citizens as co-creators of knowledge and solutions. This ensured the process was action-oriented (producing local adaptation measures) and reflective, generating methodological insights that are transferable for broader application. Qualitative and participatory tools were selected purposely over more top-down or quantitative approaches, as they were best suited to capture lived experiences of climate risks, integrate diverse perspectives (including those often marginalised in planning), and co-produce soft adaptation strategies that are just and locally validated (Cvitanovic et al., 2019).

2.2 Participant groups and recruitment

Four target groups were engaged across pilot regions, reflecting social diversity and specific vulnerabilities and perspectives on climate adaptation. The choice of these groups was made collaboratively among project partners during several internal meetings, building on previous vulnerability assessments in each of the pilots (see above) and on the barriers identified for citizen engagement (e.g., difficulties in reaching certain groups, and lack of comparability across pilots). The consortium agreed to focus on specific groups that would allow cross-case comparison while also targeting populations that are disproportionately affected by climate impacts and structurally under-represented in formal adaptation planning. These target groups were selected to ensure comparability across pilots and sensitivity to locally salient barriers to participation (time constraints, age-related risks, migration background, disability/health).

• Engaged youth (15–24 years) were selected as a target group to understand what motivates their involvement in climate issues and how their perspectives can inform engagement in adaptation, with “engaged” understood as self-reported interest or prior involvement in activities related climate or adaptation. They combine high awareness and concern with a strong desire to act, innovate and co-create solutions, and they are also the generation that will live longest with the consequences of today’s adaptation choices.

• Multicultural communities were targeted to reflect the growing cultural diversity of European cities and to ensure that adaptation strategies account for diverse socio-cultural perspectives, alternative practices of resilience, and the realities of underrepresented groups; in contrast to the other target groups, no strict age band was set, nonetheless, only adults participated for whom migration background or intercultural experience was the defining feature.

• Working populations (25–62 years) were selected to capture the challenges of those citizens whose ability to participate is shaped by professional and personal responsibilities (limited time), and to identify the conditions that could support their involvement in adaptation. For this group, participants were recruited among people in paid employment, so retired people under 65 were not targeted, and even though unemployed individuals of working age could have participated, in practice all “workers” participants were in employment.

• Citizens experiencing vulnerabilities such as seniors and (for some focus groups more specifically women over 65), and people with disabilities or chronic diseases, were particularly selected to ensure that adaptation strategies address urgent needs and integrate the voices of those who are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events (we avoid essentialising people as ‘vulnerable citizens’ to emphasise that vulnerability is situational and shaped by social and environmental conditions).

Although these categories are not mutually exclusive, each participant was assigned to a single focus group based on the primary characteristic shaping their adaptation needs and constraints (e.g., employment/time pressures vs. age-related risks vs. migration background or disability/health status), in order to preserve analytical clarity and comparability across pilots. Participants were identified through a recruitment strategy, aimed to reduce barriers to participation, beginning with systematic stakeholder mapping. This process applied an adapted representation matrix to ensure diversity across sectors, institutions, and socio-demographic profiles. Initial contacts were established with “umbrella” civil society organisations, from which targeted invitations were extended to individual participants. Recruitment also used snowball sampling at community events, bilateral meetings, and through existing professional and social networks. While these channels helped to reach a diverse set of engaged citizens, the inherently process tend to favour people who are better connected to organisations or networks and who have the time, confidence, or resources to participate. This implies that in spite of efforts to reach them, some of the most marginalised or socially isolated individuals are still likely under-represented in our sample (as mentioned in the discussion section).

2.3 Engagement process

The engagement process in Adaptation AGORA was structured around a common sequence applied across all four pilot regions while allowing flexibility to respond to local contexts (See Figure 2). Beyond stakeholder mapping and engagement process, each pilot followed three main steps (Table 2): an inception workshop with local stakeholders (1–2 per pilot with a duration of approx. 4–5 h each), a series of citizen focus groups with the different target groups mentioned above (4–6 per pilot with a duration of approx. 2,5–3 h each), and a final co-creation workshop (with previously involved stakeholders and citizens and with a duration of approx. 3 h each). This shared design enabled comparability of outcomes across diverse socio-climatic contexts while ensuring that methods were sensitive to local conditions.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Engagement process across pilot regions.

Table 2

Table 2. Overview of engagement steps, aims, and focus groups per pilot region.

The process started with a stakeholder mapping, where future participants were identified through a recruitment strategy, aimed at reducing barriers to participation to ensure diversity across sectors, institutions, and socio-demographic profiles. Initial contacts with citizens were established with “umbrella” civil society organisations, from which targeted invitations were extended. A snowball sampling approach was also used for recruitment purposes during bilateral meetings and initial events, and through existing professional and social networks.

The purpose of the inception workshops was to introduce the project, map local vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity gaps, identify priority climate hazards, and engage a broad spectrum of stakeholders (civil society actors, municipal departments, researchers, and private stakeholders) in shaping the scope of the citizen-focused activities to follow. They also served for trust-building, ensuring legitimacy of the process by aligning it with local contexts while maintaining comparability across pilots.

With inputs from the inception workshops, focus groups became the core co-creation step. A total of 18 focus groups took place across pilot regions, engaging specific target citizen groups (see above and Table 3) in structured participatory sessions. These were facilitated using methods such as the Nominal Group Technique, Think-Pair-Share, and visual engagement cards to enable inclusive deliberation, co-creation, and prioritisation of solutions, with accessibility built in (convenient venues/timing, for example sessions aligned with shift-work schedules and held directly at participants’ workplaces or in their community centres, adapted facilitation, multilingual and visual materials such as printed engagement cards with icons and simple wording), and standardized reporting to ensure comparability across pilots.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of focus groups and participants by pilot and target group.

The focus groups followed a shared protocol starting with a brief framing of locally prioritised hazards, participants introduction and sharing of their experiences via guided rounds. Using the facilitation methods noted above, groups then elaborated open ideas, clustered them into candidate adaptation solutions, and collectively prioritised them. Each session also co-evaluated engagement approaches for implementing the measures, enabling the project to identify which formats participants perceived as most inclusive and feasible. This protocol relied on a common structure (same sequence of steps, core discussion blocks, evaluation questions) but allowed facilitators to adapt examples, language, and hazard emphasis to local conditions.

Outputs fed directly into the final co-creation workshops which were designed to take the citizen-generated ideas from the focus groups and collaboratively refine, prioritise, and turn them into implementable soft adaptation measures. These workshops were deliberately set up as multi-actor spaces, bringing together citizens from different target groups, representatives of civil society organisations, municipal departments, researchers and private stakeholders who could help implement or support the proposed measures. The purpose was for these different stakeholder groups to work jointly and test the feasibility and relevance of proposals and to co-define practical implementation pathways. In this sense, across all four pilots, the combination of a shared protocol with locally tailored facilitation and stakeholder constellations ensured comparability while allowing for contextualisation: the same overall design and target groups made cross-case analysis possible, while local adaptation of hazards, venues, actor mix and examples ensured that discussions remained grounded in each city’s specific social and institutional context. This design allowed Adaptation AGORA to capture both the diversity of local outcomes and the common practices that can inform future citizen-centred adaptation processes.

2.4 Data collection and analysis

Data were generated from facilitator reports, materials (e.g., maps, notes, annotated cards) produced by participants, collaborative digital brainstorming outputs (using Miro boards), and post-event feedback surveys. All inputs were anonymised and consolidated at pilot level in a shared repository. Analysis followed an inductive-deductive approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Fazey et al., 2018; Nightingale, 2016). For the focus groups and final co-creation workshops, the main unit of analysis was each distinct “proposed adaptation measure,” complemented by linked text on key considerations/requirements and trade-offs, preferred engagement mechanisms for implementation, and perceived barriers and opportunities.

To support comparability across pilots, pilot teams (including facilitators and pilot leads) used a shared reporting template co-developed within the consortium. The template structured reporting into two steps: (1) documenting the solution-generation process (options discussed, the agreed final co-created solution, and how participants weighed pros/cons) and (2) documenting the co-evaluation of engagement methodologies (open methods proposed, preferences across the presented methods, and the reasons, barriers, opportunities, and tailoring suggestions raised).

Pilot teams first produced standardised local syntheses by clustering similar measures, noting contextual enablers and constraints, and summarising any within-session prioritisation rationales captured in the template. Prioritisation was conducted participatorily within focus group sessions: participants weighed trade-offs and requirements and agreed which measures should be carried forward. In the final co-creation workshops, these prioritised options were then stress-tested by identifying responsible actors, required resources, likely barriers, and enabling conditions for implementation. Members of the author team then reviewed the pilot syntheses side-by-side in cross-pilot analysis meetings, organising them in comparative matrices by pilot and target group and iteratively merging overlapping clusters to derive the solution typologies reported in Table 4 and the cross-cutting thematic domains. Measures were treated as “recurrent” when similar clusters emerged independently in more than one pilot and/or target group and were subsequently discussed and refined with pilot teams during internal synthesis meetings in preparation of and during the final co-creation workshops.

Table 4

Table 4. Co-created soft climate adaptation solution types across pilot regions.

Equity, feasibility, and justice were introduced as shared deductive lenses within facilitation prompts and worksheets, and their salience in the results reflects both this common framing and how often participants referred to fairness, implementability, and who might benefit or be left out. Barriers and enablers were compiled from (a) documented participant discussions and reasons for prioritisation, (b) facilitator reflections captured in the reporting template, and (c) the short exit-surveys, and were then thematically grouped during the cross-pilot synthesis.

3 Results

3.1 Overview of co-created adaptation solutions

Across the four pilot regions, participants co-designed a wide range of climate adaptation measures that addressed both the immediate impacts of extreme weather events, such as heat-related risks, and longer-term resilience (Table 4). Co-created climate adaptation solutions also included socio-technical facilitation measures (cases where the infrastructural element was enabling but not capital-intensive or central). Examples include cooling infrastructure such as shaded rest areas and hydration points, community-managed green spaces like tree planting and gardens, and early warning systems for heat risks. These align with the project’s definition of soft adaptation, as they combine light infrastructure with social, behavioural, and institutional change, and were consistently prioritised by citizens as feasible, equitable, and locally relevant measure. The measures covered domains of public health, urban liveability, education, workplace adaptation, and social cohesion. Common proposals included the establishment of accessible cooling shelters and shaded rest areas in public spaces, the expansion of drinking water points and public hydration campaigns, the integration of heat-health education and citizen science in schools and community centres including community gardens, and the development of workplace adaptations such as flexible working hours and the provision of cooling infrastructure and practices.

While several of the above measures appeared across all regions, many solutions were shaped by the specific social and climatic contexts of each pilot (more details in Table 4). Place-based factors shaped not only the initial assessment of vulnerability, urgency, and local needs, but also the themes prioritised in focus groups and co-creation workshops, and the resulting adaptation solutions proposed. For example, in Malmö, the multicultural focus group emphasised practical heatwave behaviours (avoiding peak hours, using shade, simple ventilation), intergenerational school-based education, and access to public cooling spaces; they also warned that rising air-conditioning use and costs risk unequal access to cooling, calling for a mix of individual actions and accessible public resources. In Rome, the youth group proposed age-specific awareness campaigns, mandatory climate education in schools, and flexible work arrangements, alongside measures such as participatory digital platforms for citizen engagement. In Dresden, working populations, particularly employees in heat-exposed public hospitals, highlighted the urgent need for workplace adaptations, including the adjustment of working hours, the introduction of cooling breaks, the provision of training on heat risks, and ensuring institutional support for heat-sensitive staff and patients during extreme events. In Aragón, the youth group highlighted better working conditions for precarious employees, stronger urban–rural connections, and climate shelters as key adaptation needs, alongside more positive climate communication to motivate youth engagement. The matrix below provides a cross-regional and cross-target group overview of the main types of soft adaptation solutions co-created in the focus groups.

3.2 Description of co-created adaptation solution types

Climate education (schools/lifelong): Integrate climate and heat-resilience topics across school curricula and lifelong-learning settings, e.g., through hands-on activities (including citizen-science and student-led adaptation projects) and structured learning circles. Position youth as “multipliers” who can relay practical knowledge to families and communities.

Urban greening management /community gardening: Co-develop low-cost greening actions, including the creation of new and strengthening of existing community (urban) gardens (particularly valuable for intercultural exchange) and stewardship approaches for parks and street trees (e.g., maintaining mature trees and targeted tree planting), in partnership with local organisations and municipal staff to deliver local cooling, create shaded meeting spaces, and strengthen social cohesion through shared responsibility for upkeep.

Workplace adaptations: Develop heat-action protocols triggered by defined temperature thresholds and specify organisational measures such as heat-aware scheduling, rest/cooling breaks, hydration provision, ventilation and indoor heat-management practices, and suitable uniforms/cooling gear, supported by training and coordination with employers and occupational-health actors.

Cooling infrastructure (climate shelters/safe indoor & outdoor spaces): Designate and equip public and low-threshold cool spaces (e.g., libraries, community centres) alongside shaded rest points and drinking-water access as ‘climate shelters’. Ensure these are easy to find and use through clear wayfinding, online information, and on-site signage, with attention to accessibility during heatwaves, especially for people experiencing vulnerabilities.

Awareness campaigns: Implement inclusive, barrier-free, multilingual outreach that combines non-digital and digital channels (e.g., posters, radio, infographics, libraries/pharmacies, peer-to-peer messaging) and use trusted intermediaries (e.g., social services, neighbourhood networks). Use playful, light-hearted, and relatable framing rather than alarmist messaging.

Community-based adaptation (storytelling/knowledge exchange/cooperatives): Create spaces for knowledge exchange (e.g., intergenerational storytelling and cultural-exchange sessions in neighbourhoods) where residents share viable coping and preparedness practices. Strengthen community support structures (peer networks, cooperatives/mutual-aid arrangements) that can be mobilised during extreme events.

Early warning systems: Provide timely heat/extreme-weather alerts with actionable guidance (e.g., when to use climate shelters, hydration points, or adjusted routines) through trusted, multi-channel systems (e.g., SMS, familiar everyday apps, and analogue routes), including tailored messaging for specific groups such as people experiencing vulnerabilities.

Public participation tools: Use simple participation channels (online surveys, voting platforms, participatory budgeting) to help residents and stakeholders collectively select, refine, and prioritise measures and co-steer local implementation, making decision points transparent and accessible.

Digital/analogue access tools: Pair digital services (including multilingual apps) with analogue formats (printed maps, signage, brochures, and other physical information points) to reach residents with limited digital access and to support wayfinding to cooling, water, and other amenities.

Citizen science/participatory mapping: Engage communities and schools in citizen science and participatory mapping to co-create open-data city maps that identify heat-relief resources (e.g., water and toilet facilities, shaded areas) and where these are missing, to support local action and municipal follow-up.

Sustainable behaviour incentives: Introduce nudges such as light incentives (e.g., tax reliefs, points systems, discounts) that reward climate-resilient and low-impact choices and help normalise everyday practices supportive of adaptation.

Tradition-based cooling practices: Adapt culturally rooted simple coping practices shared by residents with experience from warmer climates (e.g., drinking warm beverages, watering rooftops, clothing adjustments such as breathable long sleeves) and disseminate them through multilingual outreach and peer-to-peer exchanges and community demonstration formats.

Tourism management (decentralisation/mobility): Reduce heat exposure and congestion in hotspots by decentralising visitor flows and promoting low-impact travel behaviours through guidance and information that support safer movement during heat periods.

3.3 Target group perspectives

The perspectives articulated by different target groups demonstrated how their lived experience and current situations shape their adaptation needs. Youth linked soft adaptation solutions to communication, education, and social justice. They emphasised the importance of reframing climate adaptation as constructive and empowering, ensuring that it was accessible across different age groups and levels of education. In Aragón, young participants went further stressing the value of strengthening rural–urban ties as part of a more resilient future.

Working populations, by contrast, focused on fairness and systemic measures rather than on individual coping strategies. In both Dresden and Malmö, employees called for structural changes such as adjusted schedules, hydration policies, and workplace cooling infrastructure, thereby situating adaptation within a broader conversation about occupational health and shared responsibility.

Multicultural communities underscored the significance of communication barriers and unequal access to resources. They stressed the necessity of multilingual, non-digital communication formats and stronger education initiatives at the community level. At the same time, participants highlighted trust, informal dialogue, and the recognition of migrants’ prior experiences of climate variability as valuable resources for shaping appropriate adaptation measures.

Finally, citizens experiencing vulnerabilities, including elderly people, individuals with disabilities and chronic diseases, particularly in Dresden, identified analogue communication channels, accessible participation, and public cooling infrastructure. They favoured practical improvements to existing services over new technologies and proposed concrete measures such as cooling maps, barrier-free campaigns, personalised heat-warning systems, and adjusted care routines. These priorities highlighted feasibility and inclusivity as central to ensuring that adaptation responds directly to those most at risk.

3.4 Cross-cutting themes and contextual differences

Although the adaptation measures developed across the four pilots were diverse, our cross-case synthesis indicates convergence around several thematic clusters, namely, inclusive and accessible risk communication, education and capacity-building, workplace/occupational adaptations, and accessible cooling and warning services, each emerging independently across regions and by multiple target groups. Having these endorsements repeated in multiple regions confirm these cross-cutting priorities with shared problem framings and identify actionable pathways applicable across contexts.

Communication was identified as a central component of adaptation: participants in multiple regions emphasised the importance of inclusive and barrier-free formats (e.g., simplified language, audio descriptions), targeted, and multilingual awareness campaigns. The use of trusted community intermediaries was emphasized, alongside a shift from alarmist to inclusive messaging and communication channels that do not rely exclusively on digital technologies. Education and capacity-building were another recurring theme, with citizens advocating for the integration of climate and heat resilience into school curricula, using hands-on, locally relevant activities and citizen science as a learning and engagement tool, and targeted training for community leaders to foster local ownership of adaptation processes. At the same time, the working population prioritised workplace adaptation, demanding fair and systemic measures such as flexible working hours, cooling breaks, and measures for appropriate ventilation, the implementation of heat-stress thresholds and protocols, thereby shifting attention from individual coping strategies to shared responsibility and occupational health. Early-warning systems (e.g., for heatwaves), especially emphasised in Malmö, and the creation of accessible cooling options (e.g., climate shelters, public hydration points) together, these outlined a set of aligned priorities and measures.

Despite this, the specific design of solutions varied by context. In Rome, the density of historic urban areas required creative approaches to integrate green infrastructure without altering heritage spaces, and included co-created measures prioritising multilingual outreach (e.g., infographics), curriculum-linked climate education from primary through vocational levels, and collaboration with community networks. In Malmö’s suburban, multicultural context, community centres emerged as trusted hubs for outreach, and co-created measures paired a community-based heat early-warning system with expanded access to cooled public spaces and practical home/work ventilation, while addressing inequalities in access to cooling. In Dresden, besides the systemic workplace measures, co-created solutions prioritised tailored heat alerts for groups experiencing vulnerability, proposing concrete solutions such as participatory, open source cooling map, emphasising accessibility, feasibility and inclusive communication. In Aragón, adaptation was framed around communication, education, and social justice with an explicit focus on rural–urban connectivity to build resilience. In addition, co-created solutions prioritised climate shelters, adaptations to address occupational heat risks, heat risks, and equitable energy measures. These differences highlight the importance of adapting co-created solutions to local climatic, physical, socio-cultural, and institutional contexts.

3.5 Guiding values in solution design

Across all pilots, participants emphasised three guiding values when assessing and refining solutions. Equity was understood as the need to ensure that adaptation benefits reached the most vulnerable groups, including elderly people, low-income households, migrants, and those with limited access to institutional support. Participants were concerned that without deliberate attention, new measures could inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities. Feasibility was equally central: citizens recognised that adaptation strategies must be realistically implementable given available budgets, local capacities, and political contexts. Rather than proposing abstract or idealised interventions, participants emphasised concrete and affordable actions, such as raising awareness, adjusting work schedules, or expanding access to shaded spaces, which could be taken up within existing governance structures. Finally, the principle of justice guided discussions on fairness and inclusion in decision-making. This was reflected in calls for transparent processes, recognition of diverse needs and knowledge systems, and respect for the contributions of groups who are often underrepresented in adaptation planning. These values not only guided prioritisation but also shaped discussions during the final co-creation workshop on implementation pathways, underscoring the participatory commitment to climate justice.

3.6 Barriers and constraints

Across pilots, workshop discussions and focus group reflections identified barriers that shaped both who was reached and how proposals could work in practice. Participants often pointed to communication accessibility as a common issue: for example, digital only channels, alarmist messaging that alienates audiences already under strain, and trusted interpersonal routes (e.g., community services, home visits) are often more credible than mass campaigns. Citizens therefore mentioned focus on using multiformat (incl. Barrier-free) delivery to reach seniors, people with disabilities, migrants, and others facing structural barriers. They also advocated for a respectful (non-paternalistic) and constructive tone, with action-oriented messages that are accessible across education levels, for instance replacing alarmist framing like “Do not ignore this heat warning: stay indoors and drink water regularly” with lighter, practical wording like “If your phone is overheating, chances are you are too, give it a break and turn a full glass of water into an empty one.”

Additionally, participants highlighted coordination and responsibility gaps within municipal administrations as a barrier. Often the perceived slow or hesitant commitment from political and administrative actors created uncertainty about implementation and dampened the motivation among citizens. Time and resource constraints were another significant barrier, affecting both potential organisers (e.g., local actors) and participants. Many citizens, particularly those from working populations, found it difficult to commit to extended engagement processes due to professional and family responsibilities, while organisers often lacked the resources necessary to sustain long-term activities, since this engagement work is undertaken on top of to their core duties.

Representation gaps also emerged across pilots, despite deliberate outreach strategies. Certain groups, such as socially isolated elderly citizens or people with disabilities, remained underrepresented in the co-creation activities.

4 Discussion

4.1 Methodological insights from co-creation

The multi-stage co-creation process implemented across the four pilot regions appeared well suited to generating locally relevant, socially inclusive soft adaptation measures within the constraints of a time-limited pilot project. Three factors were particularly influential: sustained engagement over time, deliberate tailoring of methods to local contexts, and facilitation approaches that lowered barriers to participation. By sequencing inception workshops, target-group focus groups, and multi-stakeholder co-creation workshops, the design allowed participants’ ideas and concerns regarding local adaptation needs to be refined and revisited with broader stakeholder input. This iterative structure made visible the influence of citizens’ contributions, an aspect shown in other participatory adaptation studies to enhance legitimacy and buy-in (Few et al., 2007; Norström et al., 2020).

Moreover, the diversity of participants allowed for a richer understanding of adaptation needs. Additionally in some cases, potential solutions generated by one target group were similar and possible to be adopted by others, suggesting that carefully designed cross-pollination between groups can enhance the robustness of some solutions.

Focus groups employed structured techniques (i.e., Think-Pair-Share and Nominal Group Technique) that elevated quieter voices and supported reasoned prioritisation, while final workshops maintained this inclusivity as they shifted toward operational questions using small thematic tables and visual materials (infographics or worksheets summarising proposals) where appropriate. These facilitation choices balanced inclusivity and productivity by creating structured opportunities for all participants to contribute, mitigating dominance by more vocal individuals and accommodating varying literacy and language skills; this is consistent with literature on participatory workshop practice and critiques that emphasise how facilitation design shapes equity in deliberation (Chambers, 2002; Cornwall, 2008). The use of this approach also enabled participants to reflect on the suitability of different participation formats for ongoing involvement, not just to co-design measures.

The iterative design employed (moving from separate target-group sessions to integrated workshops) enabled a stepwise progression from concerns to options to pathways, supported comparability across target groups, and produced tangible soft adaptation solutions that stakeholders could carry into their organisations. These observations indicate that inclusivity depends not only on who is invited but also on how engagement is designed; in practice, trust-building, contextual sensitivity, and inclusive facilitation operated as mutually reinforcing conditions for effective co-creation (Norström et al., 2020).

The enablers suggest a practical design principle that soft adaptation processes can benefit from ongoing participation (continuity of engagement) rather than single events, combining convenient venues and timing, when tools are adapted to local contexts, and when facilitation supports balanced contributions. Continuity matters because it can help shift co-creation from one-off idea generation towards more sustained shared ownership of proposals, including iteratively revisiting ideas with the institutions that are willing to carry measures forward, even though this study did not follow measures into their implementation.

Moreover, context-specific design (adapting to local contexts) to match formats and materials to the needs of schools, specific workplaces, community centres, or specific citizen groups, makes adoption more likely. Inclusive facilitation supports meaningful input from a diverse group. Techniques like structured turn-taking and straightforward visuals help people with different literacy, language, and confidence levels contribute on an equal basis (Chambers, 2002; Cornwall, 2008).

Facilitator feedback further highlighted some cross-cutting constraints such as the absence of participation incentives, and difficulties in reaching them due to daily/weekly time pressures, which likely limited attendance among certain population groups. Overall, the barriers identified such as time and resource constraints, coordination gaps between decision-makers and local actors, communication accessibility, and representation gaps (from certain hard-to-reach groups), suggest that the quality of participation and institutional commitment are closely linked. When mandates and responsibilities are diffuse, even well-designed measures can slow or stall; when roles are clarified in advance (who leads, who supports, and how decisions are made), the same formats tend to move forward more steadily. The time and capacity limits reported by citizens and organisers indicate that participation needs dedicated resourcing: if engagement is added on top of core duties, continuity can slip and the process risks reverting to consultation only. This is supported by Adger et al. (2009), Anguelovski et al. (2016), and Chu (2021), where these patterns of organisational arrangements, norms, and power relations shaping what gets implemented are evidenced.

Embedding participation responsibilities into budgets (and job descriptions), as well as scheduling around predictable work and care constraints, are therefore not administrative details but preconditions for inclusive co-creation of soft adaptation solutions. Communication accessibility plays an important role in equity. The citizens’ call across pilots for multi-format, multilingual, and non-alarmist outreach suggests that message design and channel selection are an integral part of (awareness raising on) adaptation rather than add-ons. For example, where digital access or language are barriers is useful to plan for analogue access points and trusted intermediaries, this broadens participation and improves the legitimacy of choices taken subsequently (Peters et al., 2022; WHO, 2021). Finally, representation gaps indicate that inviting under-represented groups is necessary but not sufficient. To move from presence to influence, recruitment should be paired with facilitation that lowers participation barriers and with decision processes that link contributions to implementation steps, complemented by modest participation incentives, protected time windows and workplace/on-site sessions (for workers), and iterative, diversity-conscious recruitment to rebalance gender and better reach other under-represented groups.

4.2 Policy and governance implications

Climate change adaptation literacy, preparedness, and risk communication work best when embedded into routine settings (everyday contexts) such as schools, community venues, or workplaces, so that awareness and practice reinforce each other. Framing workplace adaptation as an organisational responsibility (rather than individual coping) helps align measures with existing occupational health and management procedures, and is consistent with literature on just adaptation that link procedural inclusion and fair outcomes (IPCC, 2022; Schlosberg et al., 2017).

Small-scale, distributed actions (e.g., cooling access points, shaded rest areas, and community gardens or school-based projects) are attractive because they are quick to deploy, generate social and health co-benefits, and lend themselves to incremental expansion through municipal / school programmes, housing associations, and civic groups (Kabisch et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2017).

Based on these findings, municipal and regional authorities should consider the following near-term actions. First, adopt climate risk communication and engagement protocols that combine digital and analogue channels, tailor messaging and make use of trusted intermediaries to reach priority groups (Peters et al., 2022). Second, create or expand small-grants or procurement lines for citizen-led (or co-created) soft measures so that low-cost actions can move without lengthy capital processes. Third, formalise cross-department coordination for heat adaptation (public health, education, housing, urban green, labour/occupational health), with clear lead units and points of contact for civic partners. Finally, embed co-created outputs into policy and budget routines so they move from discussion to delivery (Lemos and Morehouse, 2005).

Across pilots, the co-creation workshops explicitly linked citizen proposals to implementation pathways, identifying responsible actors, resource needs, and likely barriers. Transferability is strongest for procedures and formats, rather than physical, place-specific solutions. Effective transfer will strongly depend on adapting these practices or modules to local organisational set-ups and onto existing local responsibilities (i.e., identifying the lead(s), how coordination works, what resources are needed) so they can be taken up by the institutions that will run them. Transferability therefore lies less in “copying” a solution than in institutionalising a participatory cycle that couples citizen-generated ideas with municipal planning and partner networks (Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Norström et al., 2020).

Beyond the soft adaptation solutions, the approach implemented is also transferable when a clear methodological framework is paired with context-specific (local) adaptation. The core sequence of mapping, inception, target-group focus groups, cross-pilot synthesis, and final co-creation, can be applied in other regions provided that facilitators are trained to adapt some of these tools to their local socio-cultural realities. For scaling beyond the pilots, the process should be backed by institutional commitment an embedded in formal governance and budget cycles, as time is needed to sustain participant engagement and needs skilled facilitation, making it resource intensive. Peer-to-peer exchanges among cities and standardised open toolkits can accelerate uptake while preserving local fit. This embedding aligns with literature urging institutionalised co-production to avoid tokenistic engagement and maintain impact (Ensor and Harvey, 2015; Turnhout et al., 2020).

5 Conclusion

This study illustrates how engaging citizens through a staged co-creation process can contribute to generating soft climate adaptation measures that are locally relevant and attentive to equity, feasibility, and justice (within the limits of the project). By involving diverse target groups (incl. Youth, working populations, multicultural communities, and some citizens experiencing vulnerability) across four European pilot regions, the research documented how co-designed solutions and preferred engagement formats can provide context-specific solutions and cross-cutting priorities. The thematic convergence on inclusive climate risk communication, education in schools and community venues (including gardens), and workplace adaptation therefore suggests potential entry points for municipal and regional actors seeking to align adaptation planning with principles of procedural and distributive justice across different socio-cultural contexts, while still enabling transferable learning.

From a governance perspective, the findings underscore the need to institutionalise co-creation as a standard component of climate adaptation planning. Embedding such processes in formal policy frameworks ensures that citizen-generated solutions are not treated as isolated project outputs but become part of municipal and regional adaptation strategies, while tailoring facilitation approaches to local socio-cultural and demographic realities maintains their relevance and legitimacy.

In practical terms, the study suggests that small, distributed solutions can be deployed quickly, deliver health and social co-benefits, and scale incrementally through municipal programmes, schools, housing associations, and civic partners. The final co-creation workshops were designed to act as bridges from engagement to delivery by identifying potential actors, resources, barriers, and links to ongoing municipal adaptation strategies (e.g., Malmö and Rome pilots), thereby outlining plausible pathways for future uptake rather than evaluating implementation directly.

Furthermore, embedding local knowledge in adaptation planning is not only fair; it improves feasibility and uptake, ensuring solutions are implementable and embraced by the communities they aim to serve. While several solution families appeared across pilots (e.g., multilingual communication, workplace protocols, cooling access, education initiatives), what is best transferable are procedures and formats, such as clear engagement sequences, and transparent prioritisation steps. These ought to be adapted to existing local institutional roles and processes so that the implementing bodies can use them in practice.

At the same time, some limitations that might limit equity and transferability became apparent at the end of the project. First, participation was partly shaped by self-selection: among those who choose to join, participants were either more interested in climate issues, or more available to engage. Second, despite targeted recruitment, some of the most marginalised or hard-to-reach groups (such as socially isolated seniors, undocumented migrants, or people with severe disabilities and highly precarious working conditions) remained underrepresented. Third, the research design was qualitative and context-specific, grounded in four European pilot regions; as a result, the findings are not statistically generalisable. Taken together, these limitations suggest that our claims about equity and transferability should be read as indicative and context-sensitive, rather than universal prescriptions. Future research should focus on tracking the uptake and effectiveness of co-created soft adaptation measures over time, assessing both their tangible outcomes (e.g., reduced heat-related health risks) and their contribution to broader governance shifts towards inclusivity. Comparative studies across additional regions, including rural and non-European contexts, can clarify the conditions under which these participatory processes scale without losing local relevance.

Ultimately, moving beyond consultation towards co-production, where citizens are not only sources of information but active architects of their own climate resilience, offers a practical path toward achieving just and effective climate adaptation.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Javier Martin-Vide, University of Barcelona Matteo Mascia, Fondazione Lanza Antonino Rotolo, University of Bologna. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

FJ: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Supervision, Data curation, Visualization, Methodology. AV: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis. NN: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MarE: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation. LM: Formal analysis, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. JB: Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. MatE: Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. KA: Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis. ÅS: Supervision, Validation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Formal analysis. RW: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Conceptualization. SB: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Methodology. EB: Validation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. SP: Conceptualization, Validation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. AR: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Project administration, Validation, Supervision. PM: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Conceptualization, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions through the project “A Gathering place to cO-design and co-cReate Adaptation - AGORA” (under grant agreement no. 101093921).

Acknowledgments

We thank the stakeholders who participated in the Aragón, Dresden, Malmö, and Rome pilots, including FG participants such as youth, workers, multicultural communities, and citizens experiencing vulnerabilities (seniors, women over 65, people with disabilities or chronic diseases). We also acknowledge and are grateful to local stakeholders and partners that supported engagement activities (e.g., community centres, public administrations, and civil-society premises used for workshops and focus groups). We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of colleagues from the Adaptation AGORA Project (grant agreement No. 101093921) who contributed to this work.

Conflict of interest

RW and SB were employed by Oxford Office Limited (SEI OX).

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.

References

Adaptation AGORA. (2024). Deliverable D2.1 - vulnerability pitfalls and gaps in adaptive capacity of citizens and stakeholders in key pilots. Horizon Europe Programme (Grant Agreement No. 101093921). Available online at: https://adaptationagora.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AGORA_D2.1.pdf

Google Scholar

Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., et al. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Chang. 93, 335–354. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anguelovski, I., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z., et al. (2016). Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the global north and south. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 36, 333–348. doi: 10.1177/0739456X16645166

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barquet, K., Englund, M., Inga, K., André, K., and Segnestam, L. (2024). Conceptualising multiple hazards and cascading effects on critical infrastructures. Disasters 48:e12591. doi: 10.1111/disa.12591,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berrang-Ford, L., Sietsma, A., Callaghan, M., Minx, J., Scheelbeek, P., Haddaway, N., et al. (2021). A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 989–1000. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biagini, B., Bierbaum, R., Stults, M., Dobardzic, S., and McNeeley, S. (2014). A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the global environment facility. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chambers, R. (2002). Participatory workshops: A sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. London: Earthscan/Routledge.

Google Scholar

Chu, E. K. (2021). Equity, inclusion, and justice as criteria for decision-making in urban climate adaptation and resilience. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

City of Dresden (2019). Green Building Directive (Richtlinie Dresden baut grün). Dienstberatung des Oberbürgermeisters, Environmental Agency. City of Dresden.

Google Scholar

City of Malmö, 2024. Extremvärme i Malmö Vem drabbas och hur kan vi lindra effekterna? Available online at: https://malmo.se/download/18.724ecffc19377eed037e92/1733730125314/MN-2023-5606-V%C3%A4rmerapport%20Malm%C3%B6_Korrigeradekartor-tillg%C3%A4nglig2.pdf

Google Scholar

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Dev. J. 43, 269–283. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsn010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R. M., Norström, A., Löf, M. F., and Reed, M. S. (2019). Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environ. Sci. Pol. 94, 20–31. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ensor, J., and Harvey, B. (2015). Social learning and climate change adaptation: evidence for international development practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 6, 509–522. doi: 10.1002/wcc.348,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission. (2021). Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM(2021) 82 final). Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0082

Google Scholar

European Environment Agency. (2024). Europe’s changing climate hazards: An updated assessment based on recent observations and future projections. EEA report no. 15/2024. Available online at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-changing-climate-hazards-2024

Google Scholar

Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Patterson, J., Hultman, J., van Mierlo, B., et al. (2018). Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 54–70. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Few, R., Brown, K., and Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim. Pol. 7, 46–59. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Franke, J. (2015). Klimawandel in Sachsen - wir passen uns an. Dresden: Saxon State Ministry for the Environment and Agriculture (SMUL).

Google Scholar

Gobierno de Aragón (2019). Estrategia Aragonesa de Cambio Climático 2030 (EACC 2030). España: Dirección General de Sostenibilidad, Departamento de Desarrollo Rural y Sostenibilidad.

Google Scholar

IPCC (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., and Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Cham: Springer.

Google Scholar

Lemos, M. C., and Morehouse, B. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Change 15, 57–68. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

LHD (2025). Untersuchung zur Klimaanpassung in den Fokusgebieten Dresden-Altstadt und Dresden-Neustadt. Dresden: City of Dresden (Landeshauptstadt Dresden, LHD).

Google Scholar

Nightingale, A. J. (2016). Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 48, 41–47. doi: 10.1111/area.12195

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peters, E., Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P., Schley, D., and Pidgeon, N. (2022). Evidence-based recommendations for communicating the health effects of climate change. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 9, 217–228. doi: 10.1007/s40572-022-00355-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, S., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., et al. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 77, 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

REGKLAM (2013). Integriertes Regionales Klimaanpassungsprogramm für die Region Dresden. Grundlagen, Ziele und Maßnahmen. Berlin: REGKLAM-Publikationsreihe.

Google Scholar

Roma Capitale. (2024). Proposta di Strategia di Adattamento Climatico. Available online at: https://www.comune.roma.it/web-resources/cms/documents/Strategia-adattamento-climatico.pdf

Google Scholar

Rutherford, J., Mai, L., and Sanyal, R. (2020). Livelihoods and vulnerability in the urban global south. Urban Stud. 57, 771–787. doi: 10.1177/0042098019851956

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sartorius, J. V., Geddes, A., Gagnon, A. S., and Burnett, K. A. (2024). Participation and co-production in climate adaptation: scope and limits identified from a meta-method review of research with European coastal communities. WIREs Clim. Change 15:e880. doi: 10.1002/wcc.880

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schlosberg, D., Collins, L. B., and Niemeyer, S. (2017). Adaptation policy and community discourse: risk, vulnerability, and just transformation. Environ. Polit. 26, 413–437. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1287628

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swedish Expert Council for Climate Change Adaptation 2022 Första rapporten från nationella expertrådet för klimatanpassning. Available online at: https://klimatanpassningsradet.se/polopoly_fs/1.180289!/Rapport%20fr%C3%A5n%20Nationella%20expertr%C3%A5det%20f%C3%B6r%20klimatanpassning%202022.pdf

Google Scholar

Turek-Hankins, L. L., Mahdavi, A., and van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2021). Co-creation for community resilience: lessons from adaptive governance and urban living labs. Sustainability 13:1203. doi: 10.3390/su13031203

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turnhout, E., Metze, T. A., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., and Louder, E. (2020). The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

WHO (2021). Heat and health in the WHO European region: Updated evidence for effective prevention. (technical report). Available online at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/339462/9789289055406-eng.pdf

Google Scholar