Transforming climate policy making and implementation: Co-constructing knowledge to empower and engage diverse actors towards transformation ocean-climate action and policy
Phase 1, Work Package 4, Cluster 3.2 of Transforming Climate Action
Principal Investigators: Sandra Toze (Information Science), Bertrum MacDonald (Information Science), Anne Fauré (Marine Resource Management), Kristin Poduska (Physics)
The effects of climate change and the costs of destructive weather extremes are now widespread. However, in the face of this evidence, strategies and public policies to mitigate gravely deteriorating environmental conditions and biodiversity losses and to implement adaptation options are seriously lagging. The volume of information on climate and climate change subjects has rapidly spiralled upward since the early decades of the twentieth century following the discovery that rising global temperatures were primarily caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Even setting aside a sizeable volume of inconsequential information, and the emerging concerns around misinformation, the growing body of credible evidence that could be expected to inform decisions about climate change seems to have limited or very slow uptake in public policy and practice.
Most policy decision-making processes are notoriously complex and “messy”. The arena of public policy decision making at all levels of government is populated with many different actors and actions where information of many types and formats can support decision-making processes if it reaches decision makers in a timely and suitable manner. Evidence (information) can be introduced at many different entry points in decision processes where credibility, relevance, legitimacy, and timeliness are key factors for enabling evidence to be effective. Most information transmission routes in decision processes are not straightforward as the pathways are often drawn-out and convoluted with potentially numerous blockage points, and are increasingly becoming politicised.
To better understand this complexity, and the frequent disconnect between evidence and policy, we will use mixed methodology to address the following questions.
- How do decision-makers select evidence for policy development and implementations? How should evidence be communicated to foster uptake in decisions?
- What enables or limits the use of evidence?
- What roles do formal and informal information pathways play?
- What knowledge is being produced, disseminated, and used, by whom?
- What perspectives are over- or under-represented in the knowledge produced and mobilized?
To answer these questions, we have launched the following projects.
Systematic Map
Project team: Alexandre Legault, Erin Keast, Sandra Toze, Bertrum MacDonald, Andrea Belen, Jaime Walsh, Liz Wilson
We are finalizing our protocol for a systematic map to better understand the state of the literature on the processes through which local governments engage with evidence in coastal adaptation policy-making.
Municipal Case Studies
Although research about evidence-informed decision making and policy development has been pursued extensively in recent decades, much remains inadequately understood about the enablers and barriers to the uptake of evidence in many research-policy interfaces. Much of the recent research has focused on provincial/state, national, and international levels. Despite being on the frontlines of the climate crisis local communities have historically had limited input into climate adaptation decisions where climate issues are affecting all citizens. Municipal governments are critical actors in implementing climate change adaptation policies but their authority to create and implement these policies is bound by provincial legislation. Informing and implementing climate change adaptation policies in local governments remains a significant challenge and some have even questioned their credibility. Little research has been conducted on what enables and restricts the uptake of evidence in municipal decision-making, and the literature that currently exists focuses is limited in scope. For example, it is unclear to what extent information use behaviour influences decision-making processes regarding climate policy at the local and municipal government levels.
In response to this gap our goal is to conduct a series of case studies of coastal municipalities to better understand and recommend improvements to coastal climate policy decision processes. The case studies will investigate the following key questions: How are urban coastal municipalities considering evidence in the development of policy to respond and adapt to climate change? What are the key enablers and barriers in the uptake of research in these contexts? How can enablers be enhanced and barriers be mitigated for both policy makers and researchers?
These case studies will be designed based on a participatory method. We will start with the guiding questions outlined above and work with the staff of the municipal governments in each case study to co-create the research questions, confirm methodologies, and work together towards results. In this way we will aim to directly involve policy- and decision-makers in the project. Together we will work to provide policy ready recommendations. We acknowledge that municipalities exist within a multi-level government environment, and include a range of stakeholders including citizens, youth, activist groups, researchers, as well as policy- and decision-makers. This work begins with a recognition that evidence includes diverse forms of data, information and knowledge including – scientific, social science, humanities, local and Indigenous knowledges. Our team will work closely with Work Package 3, to examine the impact of Policy Entrepreneurs within municipal climate policy processes.
Case Study 1 – Lunenberg
Project team: Alexandre Legault, Sandra Toze, Bertrum MacDonald
In 2024, the Government of Nova Scotia announced it would not proclaim the Coastal Protection Act. The Act, which received royal assent in 2019, would have prevented developers from building within a designated “coastal protection zone.” The Government’s position was clear: municipalities should be responsible for implementing coastal adaptation solutions. Unfortunately, municipal staff (planners, engineers, and administrators) often lack the expertise, staffing capacity, and financial resources to undertake large-scale coastal adaptation projects independently. Staff may also struggle to identify and select the most relevant, credible, and legitimate information to inform policy design. No study has yet examined how municipal staff identify, record, retrieve, process, trust, and use information in the design of coastal adaptation policies. We reflect on the research co-production workshop held with 12 practitioners from five sectors in July 2025, as well as our participation in the Green Shores Program’s Local Government Working Group monthly meetings. Using the five municipalities of the historical county of Lunenburg as case studies, we discuss how discussions with key informants have significantly influenced our selection of research methods.
New Edition of Science-Policy for Effective Coastal and Ocean Management
Project team: Sandra Toze, Bertrum MacDonald, Jaime Walsh, Erin Keast, Liz Wilson
Work has begun on the proposal for the most relevant, thought-provoking and diverse work centred on our core research questions, collecting chapters for a new edition of Science, Information, and Policy Interface for Effective Coastal and Ocean Management. The first edition of this book focussed on providing an overview of key topics critical to understanding the challenges of communicating scientific information in coastal and ocean management. Much has changed since this book was published in 2016. A new edition, focussing on the role of effective coastal and ocean management in transformation climate action is planned. A goal of the book will be to highlight the increasing diversity and interdisciplinarity of researchers in this field, to consider the changes in the information landscape including the increase in misinformation and the impact of AI, and examine the increasing politicisation of policy processes.