In the urgent quest to combat the multifaceted threats posed by climate change, cities around the world face the critical challenge of integrating climate information into their governance and planning frameworks. However, recent insights reveal that the mere availability of scientific data and projections is not sufficient for climate adaptation strategies to take root effectively. A groundbreaking study focusing on three European cities—Bilbao, San Sebastián, and Copenhagen—casts new light on the complex social and institutional dynamics shaping the valuation and uptake of climate information in urban contexts.
At the heart of this inquiry lies the notion that climate information’s usability hinges not only on its technical merit but also on deeply entrenched normative frameworks that cities actively construct and embody. These normative frameworks reflect the distinctive identities and development visions each city cultivates. In Bilbao, for example, the narrative of post-industrial regeneration governs the interpretation of what constitutes legitimate interventions. San Sebastián aligns its climate strategies with a strong commitment to sustainability, while Copenhagen foregrounds innovation and technological prowess as central to its urban identity. These narratives effectively shape what policymakers, planners, and stakeholders recognize as credible knowledge and actionable practice in climate risk management.
The research underscores that the evaluative criteria used to assess climate information are socially constructed, emerging from a dialogue between official rules and tacit, unofficial standards cultivated through shared expectations within municipal institutions. Explicit regulations and legal mandates form the backbone of these evaluative criteria, offering historical and formal stability. Yet, just as crucial are the tacit norms embedded in technical routines and professional cultures, which enforce methodological coherence and quality standards. This dual anchoring through legal and methodological stabilization mechanisms ensures that climate data is not just available but integrated seamlessly into existing workflows and decision-making processes.
One of the study’s pivotal revelations concerns the role of “rhetorical closure” in stabilizing evaluative criteria. Cities utilize coherent narratives that assert certain practices as inherently proper and optimal—Bilbao’s strict adherence to urban regeneration standards, San Sebastián’s comprehensive sustainability attributes, and Copenhagen’s cutting-edge innovation culture are illustrative examples. This rhetorical framing effectively sets boundaries on legitimate climate actions, often marginalizing alternative approaches that do not fit within these established storylines. Thus, the deployment of climate information becomes a practice tightly interwoven with the city’s identity politics.
Further, the report highlights the significance of institutional causality in shaping how climate information is adopted. In both San Sebastián and Copenhagen, the emergence of specialized departments with supra-municipal authority empowered these entities to navigate the complexities of climate adaptation beyond traditional bureaucratic silos. This redistribution and reallocation of roles, resources, and competences facilitated more integrated and responsive governance frameworks capable of addressing climate risk comprehensively. Conversely, Bilbao’s model remains more reliant on conditional political support and formal legal embedding, illustrating varying trajectories of institutional empowerment.
Cross-departmental coordination emerges as another crucial spatial dimension for the effective application of climate knowledge. Each city devised mechanisms tailored to their administrative architectures to ensure cooperation among diverse municipal entities. Bilbao leveraged the inherent flexibility of project planning cycles to insert climate resilience into ongoing initiatives. San Sebastián orchestrated task distribution through its Municipal Climate Coordination Board, though ongoing resource constraints and practical limitations required constant negotiation. Copenhagen’s centralized data system represents a leap forward in integrating climate information with urban projects through systematic data sharing, project tracking, and automated coordination, highlighting the potential of digital governance tools.
Integral to these processes are strategic persuasion efforts targeting political and administrative decision-makers. Advocates for climate information adeptly linked data use to a broad array of social, institutional, legal, and financial benefits, thereby aligning climate adaptation with prevailing political agendas. The narratives incorporated themes of safety, justice, modernization, equity, and prosperity, crafting a compelling case for why climate services matter—not only as technical inputs but as drivers of holistic urban well-being. This discursive strategy was underpinned by the practical knowledge of stakeholders versed in both scientific and normative dimensions, enabling them to frame their arguments convincingly within existing institutional logics.
The researchers also identify “prefigurative relations” as critical determinants of climate information uptake—where certain entities hold enabling or constraining power over others. In Bilbao, the integration of climate considerations necessitated multi-stakeholder consensus and legal amendments, tying together environmental, political, and public spheres. San Sebastián’s Environment Department facilitated implementation by mobilizing external funding and expertise through extensive networks, underscoring the value of social capital in urban adaptation. In Copenhagen, political prioritization and the veto power of environmental authorities shaped project legitimacy, while inclusive citizen participation, enabled through innovative engagement tools like augmented reality and workshops, enhanced democratic support.
Notably, the study affirms that aligning climate services with a city’s prevailing identity and legal reality determines the extent to which such services become routinized and impactful. In other words, whether climate information materializes from a valuable resource into actionable knowledge depends on the interplay of legal mandates, political commitment, institutional arrangements, and cultural narratives. Each city’s history, strategic vision, and operational capacities mediate these interactions, underscoring the fact that standardized climate data alone cannot guarantee effective local adaptation.
This integrative approach highlights an often-overlooked dimension of climate service usability: the social construction of meaning and legitimacy within municipal governance. For providers of climate information, this means a shift away from purely technical refinements toward a deeper engagement with the political economy of knowledge production and use. Understanding how municipalities narrate their development trajectories, regulate institutional identities, and manage cross-sector coordination is essential to designing climate services that resonate with users’ lived realities and decision contexts.
Beyond its immediate empirical contributions, this research calls for a broader agenda in climate adaptation scholarship and practice—one that prioritizes normative structures and institutional cultures alongside data precision and accessibility. Future investigations might explore how these social processes unfold in diverse urban settings globally, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions where governance capacities and institutional narratives are in flux. Climate adaptation, therefore, presents as much a challenge of social innovation and governance transformation as it does a technical endeavor.
In summary, the valuation of climate information is fundamentally a context-dependent and normatively embedded process. Cities’ evaluative criteria for what counts as useful and legitimate climate data reflect their unique historical pathways, institutional frameworks, and self-perceptions. Successful uptake occurs when climate information harmonizes with established narratives, legal mandates, technical methodologies, and political priorities, enabling it to become integral to urban governance rather than a peripheral scientific input. This recognition reframes climate services from mere information providers to co-creators of urban futures, emphasizing the necessity of socially attuned, institutionally embedded approaches to climate risk management.
As urban centers accelerate efforts to confront climate risks, these insights provide both caution and opportunity. They caution against simplistic assumptions that better data alone will drive adaptation. Simultaneously, they open opportunities for climate scientists, policymakers, and service designers to innovate collaboratively, tailoring climate knowledge to the distinctive social fabrics and strategic imperatives of each city. Such approaches hold promise for more resilient, just, and sustainable urban environments in the face of an increasingly uncertain climate future.
Subject of Research:
The study investigates how the use and valuation of climate information in municipal governance is shaped by socially constructed evaluative criteria, institutional arrangements, and local narratives within the cities of Bilbao, San Sebastián, and Copenhagen.
Article Title:
Valuing Climate Information in Context
Article References:
Reveco Umaña, C., Máñez Costa, M. Valuing climate information in context. npj Urban Sustain 6, 72 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-026-00395-0
Image Credits:
AI Generated
