Co-creation is seen as instrumental in bridging the gap between scientific innovation in climate services and their use in decision-making. However, there has been limited engagement with the different types of co-creation approaches that exist in practice, how they are executed, how they bridge the usability gap, and in what situations they would be most effective. This study aims to characterise climate service co-creation in practice, and develop typologies to explore how they bridge the usability gap. We conducted Thematic and Ideal Type Analyses of 33 case studies developed from Key Informant Interviews and Content Analysis of co-creation process documents. We show that i) co-creation approaches place a strong emphasis on the climate information (its usability and usefulness) to improve use of climate services, ii) co-creation in practice deviates from the theoretical approach, and iii) in addition to other contextual factors, the mode (research and commissioned) of co-creation has a strong influence on the execution of co-creation processes. We develop three typologies of climate service co-creation in practice; i) information-intensive (n = 21), concerned with producing useful information; ii) functional-use intensive (n = 5), concerned with the usability of the co-created information in decision-making; and, iii) innovation-oriented (n = 7), concerned with embedding new insights into innovative climate services. This study benefits researchers and practitioners implementing co-creation in the field of climate services to understand the types of co-creation that exist, the risks associated with each type, and the level to which each type may influence the use of climate services.

Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) agendas converge in their priorities to reduce social vulnerability and enhance resilience in the face of climate change. However, they are often treated separately in practice and in local government plans. In South Africa, while municipalities are legally mandated to develop Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Disaster Management Plans (DMPs), this is not the case for CCA. In this study, we assessed the engagement with, and linkages between, CCA and DRR in 20 local municipalities from contrasting socio-economic contexts in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa by conducting an analysis of their IDPs, DMPs and any plans or strategies pertaining to CCA. Our results show that none of the municipalities had separate CCA strategies, with only two municipalities complying with the mandate to have DMPs. While municipalities mostly included CCA- and DRR-related activities in their IDPs, there were no explicit linkages made between the two approaches. Apparent was the prioritisation of bolstering infrastructure with little attention towards addressing social vulnerability and building resilience. Overall, little has been done to prioritise or link CCA and DRR at the local government level, especially in the context of addressing social vulnerability and building resilience. These findings suggest the need for South Africa to implement and promulgate legal instruments, policies and resources to capacitate local municipalities in mainstreaming and integrating CCA and DRR. Significance: • This study highlights that, while CCA and DRR converge in theoretical frameworks and international and national policies, little has been done to link the two at the local government level in South Africa. • Overall, findings indicate that social vulnerability reduction and resilience building are still not recognised as important aspects of CCA and DRR. • Local municipalities prioritise technical solutions and infrastructure maintenance, with little attention to development and structural causes of vulnerability. • Support, in terms of resources, is needed to capacitate local municipalities in (1) linking CCA and DRR and (2) reducing social vulnerability and building resilience.