8 December 2025; 13:00-14:00 GMT+1
Presenter: Jesse Schrage
Biography
I am a social scientist specialised on issues of urban climate governance and environmental policy. My research deals with decision-making concerning climate governance – generally with a focus on urban and regional planning, policy and politics. A recurrent question for me is how the social and political dimension of organisations and their actors meditates our responses to climate change. Currently, my research focuses on understanding how climate information can improve the resilience and adaptive capacities of local communities to a changing climate, mostly in East Africa.
Paper/article to be presented
Title: What is Energy for
Authors: Elizabeth Shove and Gordon Walker
Link to paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0263276414536746
PDF to download: shove-walker-2014-what-is-energy-for-social-practice-and-energy-demand (1)
Additional webpage: NORCE Research Institute
Slides shared during the discussion here.
Session Highlights
The session led by Dr. Jesse Schrage from NORCE focused on unpacking what we mean by “demand for climate services” and why this concept matters for climate risk research and practice. Jesse began by challenging the assumption that demand for climate services is fixed or naturally occurring. Instead, he argued that demand is socially constructed, emerging from everyday practices, routines, and infrastructures—both material, such as technologies and satellite data, and social, such as policy frameworks and governance structures. This perspective reframes climate services as part of a dynamic socio-technical system rather than a static product.
He explained that over the past two decades, the climate services field has shifted from a supply-driven model, where data provision was assumed to lead to use, toward a demand-driven approach. However, this shift often overlooks the conditions that make climate services necessary in the first place. Jesse highlighted three dominant ways of conceptualizing climate services:
- The first is the instrumental or technocratic approach, which treats climate services as informational products to be improved and delivered. This approach assumes that better data will automatically lead to better decisions. He illustrated this with the Acacia Project, which aimed to provide cyclone forecasts weeks in advance to communities in Madagascar. Surprisingly, when asked if longer lead times would help, most community members said no, explaining that they lacked the capacity to act on such early warnings and that it would only cause prolonged anxiety.
- The second approach centers on co-production, emphasizing partnerships between scientists and users to tailor services. In Acacia, this involved testbeds with meteorologists, engagement with the Red Cross and local communities, and peer meetings with decision-makers to assess usability. These platforms revealed that usability is not embedded in the information itself but emerges through relationships and iterative engagement.
- The third approach situates climate services within governance systems, recognizing that demand is shaped by institutional structures, policies, and power dynamics. For example, anticipatory actions in Madagascar depend on national meteorological services and humanitarian organizations, highlighting that forecasts alone are insufficient without enabling environments.
The discussion then turned to critical challenges. Despite efforts to tailor services, uptake remains low because structural constraints—such as rigid budget cycles and lack of resources—limit the ability to act on information. Seasonal forecasts often arrive too late to inform farm-level decisions like seed selection or fertilizer application. Indigenous knowledge systems further complicate adoption, as local indicators may conflict with official forecasts. Inclusivity was another concern: how can climate services reach marginalized groups, such as those with visual or hearing impairments? Participants also raised the issue of sustainability. Too often, projects end with portals and papers but fail to create lasting impact. Suggestions included hiring local researchers, building capacity in-country, partnering with organizations and private-sector actors, and aligning with financial service providers to develop viable business models.
The conversation acknowledged the tension between participatory ideals and practical constraints. While co-production is valuable, it is resource-intensive and difficult to scale. There was consensus that research must move beyond short-term projects to influence implementation pathways, funding models, and public-private partnerships that enable sustained adaptation support. Jesse concluded by proposing that we situate climate services within everyday adaptation practices, asking fundamental questions such as: What are climate services for? Who can act on them? And how do they fit into the realities of people’s lives?
Questions and Responses
Q1: How do we ensure climate services are inclusive for all users (e.g., blind or deaf)?
A: Tailoring is important, but we must also question whether services are needed in the first place. Translation and accessibility remain black boxes, often handled by boundary organizations like extension services.
Q2: Why does uptake remain low even with tailored services?
A: Indigenous knowledge systems and structural constraints complicate adoption. Usability gaps persist because enabling environments (resources, policies) are missing.
Q3: When communities reject proposed services (e.g., long-lead cyclone forecasts), do they suggest alternatives?
A: Often, the issue is not the forecast itself but the capacity to act on it. Enabling interventions—such as support from humanitarian organizations—are critical.
Q4: How can technical producers use social science insights?
A: Mainly as a guide to understand diversity and power dynamics. However, evolving needs may be better addressed by agile private-sector actors than by research projects.
Q5: How do we sustain services beyond project funding?
A: Options include hiring local researchers, partnering with organizations, and designing business models that attract private-sector investment. Aligning with financial service providers can create long-term viability.
Q6: Is full participatory co-production feasible?
A: Not always. It requires balancing depth of engagement with scalability and cost-effectiveness.
Q7: What happens after projects end?
A: Without clear implementation pathways and funding streams, outputs risk becoming dormant. Participants suggested leveraging national systems and private-sector partnerships to ensure continuity.