![Usage of the leverage-points concept in our research (gray field) [source: Abson et al. (2017)].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patryk-Kaczmarek-2/publication/351625095/figure/fig2/AS:1024357736407044@1621237324751/Usage-of-the-leverage-points-concept-in-our-research-gray-field-source-Abson-et-al_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Patryk Kaczmarek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patryk Kaczmarek on May 17, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cocreation for Climate Change—Needs for Actions to Vitalize Drivers and Diminish Barriers
K. FAGIEWICZ,
a
P. CHURSKI,
a
T. HERODOWICZ,
a
P. KACZMAREK,
a
P. LUPA,
a
J. MORAWSKA-JANCELEWICZ,
a
AND
A. MIZGAJSKI
a
a
Faculty of Human Geography and Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna
n, Poland
(Manuscript received 29 August 2020, in final form 15 February 2021)
ABSTRACT: This study determines the conditions and provides a recommendation for fostering cocreation for climate
change adaptation and mitigation (CCA&M). In postulating that insufficient cocreation by stakeholders in the quadruple
helix model is an important factor contributing to the low effectiveness of climate actions in the regions, we have focused our
research on identifying real stakeholder engagement in climate action and identifying the needs, barriers, and drivers for
strengthening the cocreation process. We identified the needs for action highlighted by stakeholders as having an impact on
reducing barriers and stimulating drivers. We treated the identified needs for action as deep leverage points (intent and
design) focused on three realms—knowledge, values, and institutions—in which engagement and cocreation can be
strengthened and have the potential to increase the effectiveness of climate action taken by stakeholders within our qua-
druple helix. We recommend knowledge-based cocreation, which puts the importance of climate action in the value system
and leads to paradigm reevaluation. The implementation of the identified needs for action requires the support of insti-
tutions, whereby they develop standards of cooperation and mechanisms for their implementation as a sustainable
framework for stakeholder cooperation. The research has proved how the quadruple helix operates for climate action in the
Pozna
n Agglomeration. We believe that this case study can be a reference point for regions at a similar level of develop-
ment, and the methods used and results obtained can be applied in similar real contexts to foster local stakeholders in
climate action.
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study aims to understand the condition of cocreation and engagement between
stakeholders included in the quadruple helix model responding to climate change challenges. We identified needs for
climate actions in the Pozna
n Agglomeration and operationalized them as leverage points, which can strengthen en-
gagement and cocreation and contribute to increasing the effectiveness of climate action taken by stakeholders. We
show a wide range of possible climate actions, but at the same time we highlight the barriers that, in the Pozna
n
Agglomeration case, mainly result from poor cooperation between stakeholders and insufficient use of social capital.
Cities with similar problems could make use of our results and consider both weak points and recommended solutions in
planning strategies for climate change adaptation and mitigation.
KEYWORDS: Adaptation; Climate services; Decision support; Policy; Societal impacts
1. Introduction
The important role of humanity as a driver of climate change
is increasingly well documented, especially thanks to the
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which is already
preparing the Sixth Assessment Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/
report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/). The inhabi-
tants of large cities and urbanized regions are particularly
vulnerable to the effects of climate change, for which the most
important effects of the rapid rise in temperature include an
increasing frequency and violence of extreme weather events,
population health problems, increasing energy consumption,
and difficulties in water availability (Hunt and Watkiss 2011;
IPCC 2014).
In recent years, various initiatives have been taken in ur-
banized areas to adapt to climate change (Aylett 2014;Reckien
et al. 2018;Heikkinen et al. 2020). Planning the structure of the
city to support its resilience focuses on nature-based solutions
(Kabisch et al. 2017). The nature-based-solutions approach in
cities includes management, conservation, and restoration of
ecosystems, which deliver services that can help to reduce cli-
mate change exposures (Colls and Ash 2009;Munang et al.
2013). This is based, particularly, on the design and improve-
ment of green and blue infrastructures (Müller et al. 2014;
Bowler et al. 2010). These climate change adaptation and
mitigation (CCA&M) initiatives also find a positive social
resonance, as they concern actions at local and regional di-
mensions. Despite the effects of climate change being globally
observable, these are individual to localities, because the
causes are generated on the local level. Thus, climate change is
simply a quintessential multilevel governance problem (Lee
and Koski 2015). Local actions occur in regional, national, and
international government arrangements for mitigation (Allen
et al. 2009;Sharpe et al. 2016) and adaptation efforts
(Amundsen et al. 2010;Van Well and Scherbenske 2014). Lee
and Koski (2015) consider political and economic conditions at
the local level as the optimal scale in pushing climate actions
and that local policy makers have been key players in multilevel
Denotes content that is immediately available upon publica-
tion as open access.
Corresponding author: Katarzyna Fagiewicz, kfag@amu.edu.pl
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 555
DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0114.1
Ó2021 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright
Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
governance. The majority of studies show that climate change
is perceptible at the local scale and has impacts on the increase
of social awareness (Reyes-García et al. 2016). According to
Torabi et al. (2016), awareness occurs not only when the
society learns through social networks, but also from a
personal experience of extreme and unpredictable phe-
nomena (Chingala et al. 2017). The growing perceiving of
climate change is also increasingly leading the local society to
participate in creating targeted adaptation strategies that
provide tangible benefits to residents, addressing important
regional goals (Picketts et al. 2013). In the last decade, the role
of regional and local government has been changing. It shares
responsibilities with local actors such as academia and educa-
tion, business, and civil society organizations (CSO) (Ricart
et al. 2019). The growing importance of the social component is
documented by business initiatives such as corporate social
responsibility (CSR) or cooperation between business, gov-
ernment, and/or CSO in cross-sector social partnerships
(CSSP) (Barnett 2019;Googins and Rochlin 2000). However,
joint actions for adaptation to climate change and mitigation
have been either stillborn or limited, due to different factors
that include political weakness in the decision-making pro-
cesses at the local level, conflicting interests of socioeconomic
and environmentally opposed priorities, rejection of alterna-
tive societal points of view, and inefficiency of existing policies
or the roles of scientists and experts, as well as absence of
public supporters (Adger et al. 2009;Withmarsh 2011).
The relationships between stakeholders in the cocreation
process should be based on possessing equal rights and posi-
tions (Chaudhary et al. 2018). However, the rule is that there
are differences between the possibilities and the strength of
influence of individual stakeholders (Hein et al. 2017;Wang
et al. 2020) These include decision-making authority (local
government), financing options (business), the possibility and
effectiveness of influencing public opinion [nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), CSOs], or credibility in formulating
arguments (science). Ackermann and Eden (2011) argue that
those stakeholders who can contribute the most to achieve
strategic goals should be prioritized. Moreover, individual
stakeholders may have competing interests. These facts prove
that in the cocreation process, more careful attention needs to
be paid to social inequality and power asymmetries (Barnaud
et al. 2018).
Taking these conditions into account, this paper argues that
insufficient cooperation between various stakeholders in the
area of cocreation or codesign of solutions adjusted to the local
circumstances is one of the important factors influencing the
low effectiveness of activities on behalf of CCA&M.
Bai et al. (2018) presented a set of research priorities for
cities worldwide related to climate change. They point out that
researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and other city
stakeholders need to strengthen partnerships and produce
knowledge together. It is not only a matter of controlling the
actions of local and regional authorities, but also of involving
various social groups in the cocreation of effective solutions
(Kuenkel 2019;Lam et al. 2019). The process of implementing
complex climate actions needs to take place with the active
involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. However, this
requires cooperation in taking action at different levels by
different stakeholder groups in a so-called network environ-
ment. This approach corresponds to the quadruple helix con-
cept, developed by Arnkil et al. (2010) and Carayannis and
Rakhmatullin (2014;Carayannis et al. 2015), which emphasizes
cross integration of different knowledge modes. These include
academia and education, business, local government, and
CSOs as sources of specific types of knowledge that intertwine
to create new, innovative solutions.
In this paper, we aim to advance the theory and practice of
cocreation and solutions responding to climate change chal-
lenges. The research procedure (Fig. 1) included recognition of
barriers, drivers, and needs for action in terms of cooperation
between academia and education, business, and local govern-
ment as well as civil society in the cocreation of innovative
solutions for climate action.
We paid special attention to recognizing needs for action to
improve cocreation by eliminating barriers and stimulating
drivers.
We treated the identified needs for action as leverage points
(Meadows 1999;Abson et al. 2017) to increase the effective-
ness of climate actions. The concept allows for the identifica-
tion of places in a system where a small shift can lead to
fundamental changes in the system as a whole and thus help to
overcome barriers and to identify the subsystems, issues,
areas, times, places, and sectors for effective interventions
(Meadows 1999).
The objectives of the investigation included the following:
1) determination of the role, competence, and scope of activity
of individual stakeholders in cooperation with CCA&M;
2) identification of needs for action, barriers, and drivers for
climate action, as perceived by different stakeholders;
3) systematization of the necessary actions in the system of
three realms of leverage points (knowledge, values, in-
stitutions) where engagement and cocreation could be
strengthened and have a chance to increase the effec-
tiveness of climate action taken by stakeholders;
4) formulation of recommendations to create a favorable
milieu for the efficient cocreation of effective CCA&M
solutions.
We conducted a research study for the Pozna
n Agglomeration.
The Pozna
n Agglomeration is located in the western part of
Poland in the center of Wielkopolska voivodeship (analogous
to a province). It comprises Pozna
n and the 17 neighboring
communes. The agglomeration covers an area of 2162 km
2
and
has over 1 million inhabitants. It is one of the most important
economic and academic centers in the country, characterized
by a buoyant and developed labor market, diversified eco-
nomic structure, established transportation network, and a
high level of attractiveness for tourism (Parysek and
Mierzejewska 2006;Churski et al. 2020). Thanks to the diver-
sified structure of the social and environmental system, the
Pozna
n Agglomeration is an interesting area for the analysis of
the functioning of the stakeholder network in the context of
cooperation with CCA&M. Even the expected economic dif-
ficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should be rela-
tively mild here because of the varied economic structure.
556 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
These conditions create a specific background for the helix
functioning of the various stakeholder groups whose climate
action could be developed jointly in a cocreation process.
The Pozna
n Agglomeration faces contemporary urban
challenges such as suburbanization and urban pressure on
green infrastructure on the one hand and depopulation of
the core city on the other (Kaczmarek 2017;Zwierzchowska
et al. 2019). The most pressing problems for the Pozna
n
Agglomeration, intensified by climate change, are related to
water management—the need for a systematic and complex
approach to rainwater and meltwater management (countering
the effect of droughts and floods; e.g., Jawgiel 2017); thermal
conditions—higher frequency of heat waves and the impact of
urban heat island in Pozna
n (e.g., Majkowska et al. 2017); air
quality—threats exceeding the permissible concentrations of
PM
10
and PM
2.5
and their harmful effects on the health of the
residents; and spatial planning—supporting investments in
nature protection and green infrastructure to increase regula-
tory ecosystem services (e.g., Zwierzchowska et al. 2019).
Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of ex-
treme weather events as well as modifies the availability of
natural resources in urban areas in Poland (Kundzewicz and
Kowalczak 2008). Without proper action, the current problems
will worsen in the future, impacting the quality of life in the
region. To meet these challenges, the local authorities initiated
the process of preparing a plan for adaptation to climate
change for the Pozna
n Agglomeration in a similar way as has
already been achieved in the City of Pozna
n (see Pozna
n City
Council 2019a).
A chance for better-tailored and, therefore, more effective
actions in the region, tackling current challenges, and sup-
porting climate change adaptation and mitigation is driving a
dialogue and cooperation between different actors, such as the
inhabitants, policy makers, infrastructure managers, social
organizations, and entrepreneurs (see Churski et al. 2020).
The results presented in this paper are the effect of periph-
eral research related to the Horizon 2020 project Territorial
Responsible Research and Innovation Fostering Innovative
FIG. 1. The investigation procedure.
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 557
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
Climate Action (TeRRIFICA), that includes an innovative
approach through the establishment, reinforcement, and
development of multistakeholder partnerships (https://
terrifica.eu).
2. Theoretical assumptions
a. The cocreation processes for climate actions within
innovation systems
The processes of cocreation related to climate change miti-
gation and adaptation is considered, within this study, as a form
of creative activity taking place in the regional innovation
system. It refers to a high degree of stakeholder involvement in
the process of producing knowledge and defining and imple-
menting activities, solutions, or projects related to climate
change. In this approach, the knowledge and expertise of
stakeholders (including the tacit ones) is treated as being equal
to scientific knowledge. We believe that innovation is a key
means to reaching environmental objectives and realizing and
supporting regional actions and adaptation plans with regard to
climate change.
Cocreation on mitigation and adaptation to climate change
relies, to the greatest extent, on the active role of the citizens
and civil society organizations in the innovation process. This
has a direct impact on innovation systems that have become
nonlinear, network based, and deeply rooted in a regional
context (McAdam et al. 2015). Sources of innovation are no
longer restricted to interactions within university–industry–
government in the traditional triple helix model of innovation
(Etzkovitz and Leydesdorff 1997). They have become more
heterogeneous and socially distributed.
Under these conditions, investigating the cocreation
process within the regional innovation system for the
Pozna
n Agglomeration requires a broader view of new ways in
which different elements of the system interact and collabo-
rate, with the aim of managing climate change challenges; we
use the concept of the quadruple helix (Carayannis and
Rakhmatullin 2014;Carayannis et al. 2015). It expands the
triple helix by adding the following new dimension. This fourth
dimension is civil society (Arnkil et al. 2010), which is under-
stood as ‘‘nongovernmental organizations, as well as more or
less formal associations and communities of interest and
practice including engaging citizens as lead users, codevelopers
and cocreators of innovative and entrepreneurial initiatives’’
(Carayannis et al. 2019).
This concept allows the integration of a bottom-up ap-
proach in the system (complementing the top-down policies
and practices) and forms a more inclusive, democratic sys-
tem based on dialogue and reflecting the values of society
(Cavallini 2016). A new approach is necessary to solve
problems in which social and technological progress co-
evolve in order to generate social and public value (OECD
2011). It also helps universities to create new alliances and
networks and to achieve more ambitious social transfor-
mation goals (Vallaeys 2013).
In this study, we analyzed the cocreation process related to
climate change adaptation and mitigation, using the quadruple
helix model approach (Fig. 2). The model helps to define the
main actors of the system (in the Pozna
n Agglomeration) to
describe the interactions and relations between them, as well as
the process of creation, distribution, and exchange of knowl-
edge. They are representatives of academia and education
(institutions of higher learning, including universities, but also
including research centers), business [companies, small and
medium enterprises (SMEs)], local government (policy makers
on various levels), and civil society (CSOs, the public, culture,
and media).
The interaction between stakeholders is multilateral and
depends on many factors that are locally embedded, such as
regional climate strategies, funding programs, legal regula-
tions, social capital, existing conflicts, strengths of regional
networks, innovation, culture, and so on.
FIG. 2. Subsystems of quadruple helix model [source: Carayannis et al. (2019)].
558 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
b. Leverage-points approach to fostering cocreation
processes for climate actions
In our research, we argue that a leverage-points perspective
deserves greater attention because, as stated by Fischer and
Riechers (2019), it holds substantial promise to inspire new
directions in sustainability science and practice.
The idea of leverage points is not unique to systems anal-
ysis (Forrester 1969,1971). Leverage points are places in a
system where relatively minor interventions can lead to rel-
atively major changes in certain outcomes (Meadows 1999).
On the basis of years of experience, D. Meadows—one of the
world’s pioneers in research on coupled human–environment
systems (Meadows et al. 1972)—postulated a hierarchy of
‘‘places to intervene’’ in complex systems (Meadows 1999).
The essence of the proposed systematization of ‘‘places to
intervene’’ comes down to distinguishing the so-called le-
verage points where interventions are easy—however, their
potential for transformational changes is not big (they are
referred to as ‘‘shallow’’ leverage points)—and leverage
points where interventions are difficult but have a high po-
tential for transformational change (they are referred to as
‘‘deep’’ leverage points). Recently, the 12-leverage-points
structure, postulated by Meadows, has been subject to mod-
ification. Abson et al. (2017) simplified this classification into
four ‘‘leverage areas’’ related to changes in parameters,
changes in feedback, changes in system design, and changes in
the intent encapsulated by the system parameters. These may
be considered as modifiable, mechanistic features such as
taxes, incentives, and standards, or physical elements of a
regional system such as stock levels or material flow rates.
The feedback includes interactions between elements in a
regional system that can amplify or limit its internal dynam-
ics. They also provide information to evaluate interventions
by assessing their effectiveness and efficiency. The design is
related to the information flow structures in the regional
system, which, on the one hand, are based on the principles
defined by the authorities and, on the other hand, on the
ability of society to self-organize. Finally, the intent includes
norms, values, and objectives that constitute the basis for the
activity of individual stakeholders of the system and the basis
for building the paradigm of its function. The last two
groups—design and intent—as deep leverage points are of
particular importance in identifying the necessary actions and
areas in which cooperation and cocreation could be strength-
ened (Abson et al. 2017) and would have the chance to increase
the effectiveness of climate actions taken by stakeholders.
They should be used to organize the necessary actions needed
to improve the level of cocreation. Within the scope of deep
levers that may lead to transformational change, we attach
particular importance to knowledge, values, and institutions
(Fig. 3) of which the great potential results from strong inter-
actions between them (Abson et al. 2017;Fischer and Riechers
2019;Lam et al. 2019).
Knowledge should be identified with the processes of its
creation and usage in the process of regional system transfor-
mation. Values include attitudes, norms, and behaviors of
people in relation to the elements of regional systems and the
process of their transformation. Institutions create formal and
informal conditions for the process of system transformation,
which are determined, on the one hand, by the quality of the
functioning administration and, on the other hand, are shaped
by social competences and skills in the field of interpersonal
cooperation. We argue that investigating interactions between
these three realms of deep leverage points for identifying the
drivers and barriers to effective cocreation, mitigation, and
adaptation to climate change is a crucial issue.
3. Investigation methods
The empirical part of the study was focused on the analysis
of climate action from the perspective of real stakeholder
FIG. 3. Usage of the leverage-points concept in our research (gray field) [source: Abson et al. (2017)].
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 559
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
involvement and on what needs, barriers, and drivers they
identify to strengthen cocreation (see Fig. 1).
The first step was understanding the current state of the
stakeholders’ (academia and education, business, local gov-
ernment, and civil society) engagement and cocreation for
climate change adaptation and mitigation in the Pozna
n
Agglomeration through the desk study. For this analysis we
worked from relevant policy papers as well as from on projects
and ventures that the stakeholders performed or collaborated
on (Churski et al. 2020).
Three local policy papers were taken into consideration: The
Urban Climate Adaptation Plan (UCAP; Pozna
n City Council
2019a), Strategy for Rainwater and Meltwater Management
(SRMM; Pozna
n City Council 2019b), and Low Carbon
Economy Plan (LCEP; Pozna
n City Council 2014). The
analysis also took into account the projects and undertak-
ings that were carried out by academia and education,
business, local government, and CSOs. The subject of the
study was to determine the scope and manner of taking into
account individual stakeholders as well as interrelations
between them. Structured interviews with representatives
of the stakeholders supplemented the abovementioned
analysis. That has helped to identify good practices as well
as occurring conflicts that influence the stakeholders’ en-
gagement and cocreation process.
In the second step, during a half-day regional consultation
workshop, we empirically investigated how stakeholders rep-
resenting elements of the quadruple helix model perceived the
conditions for cocreation of innovation for climate actions in
the analyzed regional system.
The 30 participants included representatives of science and
education (university, science foundation, schools, research
laboratory), business (five sectors), government (city, ag-
glomeration, and region authorities), and civil society (mem-
bers of four NGOs and three CSOs). The workshop was
conducted in the world caféscheme—an effective format to
encourage large groups of people to share their knowledge on
selected topics.
The organizers formulated three questions and divided the
participants into three groups. During the 20-min rounds of
conversation, participants considered the following questions:
1) What knowledge about climate change is needed to
strengthen cooperation and cocreation for climate
protection?
2) What motivation (values) can encourage actors to take
action for climate change adaptation and mitigation?
3) What institutional changes are needed to strengthen the
climate actions?
Facilitators working with the groups wrote down and or-
dered the obtained answers. They then presented them
during a plenary session. There was then the possibility for
an additional plenary discussion summarizing the results
obtained.
The workshop participants, using their knowledge spe-
cific to each stakeholder group, created an extensive list of
factors that referred to the process of climate change ad-
aptation and mitigation from various perspectives. These
included both the possibilities of implementing solutions
and actions for climate change adaptation and mitigation
as well as the conditions for their cocreation by different
stakeholders. In relation to the thesis adopted in the study,
the analysis of the identified factors was focused on the
conditions of the cocreation process.
The panel of facilitators and other experts from Adam
Mickiewicz University in Pozna
n analyzed all the factors
identified during the workshop and chose those that were
directly relevant to the cocreation process. The obtained set
of factors was divided into three groups: 1) barriers—what
disturbs the cocreation, 2) drivers—what facilitates the
cocreation, and 3) needs for action—limiting barriers and en-
hancing drivers.
We have assumed (Fig. 4) that the intensity and quality of
cocreation depends on the size of the barriers on the one hand
and on the stimulating role of drivers on the other. The result of
the workshop was the identification of needs for action in
connection with both factors determining stakeholders’ en-
gagement and cocreation.
The panel of experts analyzed the relationship between in-
dividual needs for action and single barriers, and drivers. Using
this procedure, the impact of subsequent needs for action (N1,
N2, ..., N8) on individual barriers (B1, B2, ... , B9) and drivers
(D1, D2, ... , D6) was determined. This recognition made it
possible to differentiate the needs for action according to the
range of links with the barriers and drivers and according to the
stakeholder groups that identified the individual factors.
The authors’ team, which belongs to the scientific commu-
nity, did not duplicate their position with the stakeholders’ role
during the investigation. As facilitators of the workshop, they
strictly limited their activity to gathering, summing up, and, in
FIG. 4. Relations between needs, drivers, and barriers for cocreation
and engagement.
560 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
the next stage, to analyzing knowledge about the cocreation
process provided by stakeholders.
4. Results—Needs for action versus barriers and drivers
in cocreation process
a. Stakeholders’ engagement in the practices relevant to
climate actions
The three policy documents considered (see section 4a)
provide a framework for the involvement of individual stake-
holders in CCA&M projects, and show the importance at-
tributed to cocreation.
UCAP (Pozna
n City Council 2019a) for the City of Pozna
n
until 2030 contains general declarations of participation of
various stakeholders in the creation and implementation of
detailed solutions. The document explicitly emphasizes the
importance of collaboration with CSOs, the scientific com-
munity, and entrepreneurs. However, these declarations are
not reflected in the attitude of local governments, which put
neither CCA&M issues nor partnerships with stakeholders at
the center of their interests.
SRMM (Pozna
n City Council 2019b) for the City of Pozna
n
is a policy paper that proposes nature-based solutions in urban
water management. It takes into account changes in the sea-
sonal distribution of precipitations, including higher frequency
of heavy rains. The participation of stakeholders in creating the
strategy was marginal. The role assigned to stakeholders is to
participate in the dialogue on implementation and dissemina-
tion of the content.
LCEP (Pozna
n City Council 2014) is aimed at reducing the
demand for coal as a fuel and increasing the thermal moderni-
zation of buildings. Both of these main directions of intervention
influence the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This policy
paper acknowledges a need to consult stakeholders on how to
implement the provisions of the document and promotes their
participation in dissemination of good practices.
The projects analyzed by scientists and schools, representing
academia and education, illustrate three different areas of
relationship with other stakeholders. The Climate Change
Impact Assessment for Selected Sectors in Poland project
(CHASE-PL; http://www.chase-pl.pl/)isaimedatacquiring
new knowledge and transferring it to policy makers and the
general public, who are not assigned an active role.
The project Coproduction with Nature for City Transitioning,
Innovation and Governance (Connecting Nature; https://
connectingnature.eu/) has a different character. Its aim is to
implement nature-based projects in urban settings through
cooperation between local authorities, communities, industry
partners, NGOs, and academics. Herein, cocreation of new
solutions with the participation of all stakeholders is at the
center of the activities.
The Educational Anti-Smog Network (ESA; https://
esa.nask.pl) is a purely educational project focused on
raising awareness of the harmfulness of particulate matter
from coal combustion. This is closely related to the im-
plementation of the low-carbon economy. It concerns
raising the competences of teachers and influencing the
general public through students.
Business-initiated and business-funded projects include na-
ture conservation, ecological education, creation of green
spaces in the city, and promotion of cycling. Civil society is the
main partner for business by being involved in the imple-
mentation of actions for climate change. It can be said that that
business strengthens CSOs by funding their activities, and this
dependence hinders partnership between them. On the other
hand, business benefits from this collaboration because the
social partners supported and promoted the actions taken by
business (e.g., by sharing their communications channels, so-
cial media), reaching a broad spectrum of society from their
areas of activity and taking responsibility for the completion of
certain tasks in the projects. This proves that business–civil
society cocreation could support the building of the general
public’s environmental awareness through CSR.
Examples of projects implemented by the local government
include the implementation of the waste management system,
planting trees in the most built up district, and development
of a new joint route for pedestrians and cyclists. All these
projects show the dominance of a top-down approach enriched
with consultations with business or social partners, which may
lead to some modifications of the adopted solutions. There is
no place here for partnership cocreation of the best solutions.
A synthetic approach to the roles played by individual
stakeholders in relation to climate actions is presented in
Table 1. It shows the lack of formal standards as to their
involvement.
One of the main findings of the study is a lack of, or low level
of, the involvement of citizens in the cocreation of climate
actions for the Pozna
n Agglomeration. Some mechanisms exist
(public consultations or formal meetings), but they are mostly
routine or limited to a small number of citizens. The scope of
this process is too narrow and does not reflect the intellectual
and social capital of the citizens as well as various organiza-
tions, which is understood to be a network of relations between
various actors, leading to a trust-based and long-term cooper-
ation with mutual benefits. The communication between the
stakeholders usually happens through the media (local televi-
sion stations, press releases, social media) as well as during
public meetings, educational events, and festivals. We have
also identified the existing conflicts within policy-making in-
stitutions (on the level of views, values, coordination, com-
munication, bureaucracy). They mostly refer to the national
versus regional competencies and have a large impact on the
governance process of the climate actions in the region. The
tensions between economic interests and general interests in
climate actions (conflicts: money vs environmental protection)
are present in the region, especially between entrepreneurs
and the local public. The conflicts arise from different grounds
(politics, competencies, financial resources), but they are often
related to values and particular needs. The need of people to be
closer to nature is one of them, and this affects the relationship,
especially with policy makers. Different visions and interests
on climate change actions also affect the cocreation process.
Engaging multiple stakeholders needs a benefits-based
policy. People usually get involved when they feel that their
opinions and ideas really do matter and can change the reality
by solving a given well-specified problem. Another important
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 561
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
aspect is the lack of awareness regarding the distribution of
tasks and responsibilities in the area of climate action between
different institutions in the region. The cocreation process
needs a clear governance structure. Making the society more
sensitive on public problems (including the climate change is-
sues) is a long-term process, which demands accurate means
and strategies. With these basic findings, it can be stressed that
there is a strong need to foster the cocreation process in the
Pozna
n Agglomeration in climate change adaptation and
mitigation activities.
b. Identification of barriers, drivers, and needs for actions
Aggregation of the opinions of representatives of the local
cocreation system, gathered during the Regional Consultation
Workshop, led to the identification of three sets of key ele-
ments influencing the level of cocreation and engagement
(Fig. 5): drivers, barriers, and needs for action.
In the approach used, the most important are the needs
for cocreation and engagement actions, the satisfaction of
which should, on the one hand, reduce the negative impact of
barriers and, on the other, strengthen the positive effects as-
sociated with the impact of drivers. The identified needs have
been additionally grouped according to the adopted realms of
cocreation process (Fig. 5) including knowledge, values, and
institutions.
There is a visible diversity of analyzed needs, in terms of the
scope of their impact, resulting from the number of barriers
and drivers affected and in terms of the level of perception
(identification) of a given need by representatives of four local
stakeholder groups (Fig. 6). Of eight needs, four (N1, N2, N5,
and N7) were identified by each stakeholder group. The need
to develop a culture of dialogue (N4), on the other hand, has
only been recognized by CSOs. On the whole, the above con-
siderations led to the identification of common fields of action
to strengthen cocreation and climate action.
The characteristics of the identified needs for the engage-
ment of key stakeholders in climate actions was carried out in
the realms of cocreation process: knowledge, values, and in-
stitutions. Later in this article, we suggest analyzing the text
together with Figs. 5 and 6for a better understanding of de-
scribed relationships between identified needs, drivers, and
barriers.
The realm of knowledge group included two needs for de-
veloping instruments that effectively raise the level of public
knowledge on issues related to climate change (Figs. 5 and 6).
Strengthening cocreation and stakeholder involvement in
climate action is largely conditioned by the elaboration of new
curricula for schools and higher education curricula focused
on the challenges of climate change (N1), as indicated by rep-
resentatives of all stakeholder groups forming the local cocreation
TABLE 1. The main roles of stakeholders (quadruple helix approach) in climate actions (source: authors’ own study of policy documents
and projects).
Relevant stakeholders Main roles
Academia and education Generate, cocreate, and transfer knowledge
Educate climate change experts
Support development of innovation activities for CCA&M of citizens, business, and policy
makers
Share research findings
Provide data for decision-making
Collaborate in awareness-raising activities
Collaborate in policy development
Business (large companies and SMEs) Develop proposals to obtain funding
Provide funding for climate action events and campaigns
Introduce good environmental practices
Develop eco-innovations
Facilitate knowledge transfer
Collaborate in awareness-raising activities
Local government Develop and approve adequate legislation and policies
Publish and share national and regional climate data
Coordinate intersectoral collaboration
Identify climate priorities
Develop support policy and financial tools
Provide funding for CCA&M
Support the development of innovations
Organize and facilitate the dialogue process
CSOs Implement CCA&M projects and/or support projects at community level
Develop and implement awareness campaigns on climate change
Organize educational events and festivals
Participate at the consultations
Introduce and promote good environmental activities
Promote dialogue culture and networking
Propose innovations in climate actions that are needed and relevant for the society
Participate in citizens’ panels and open debates
562 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
system. Innovative educational programs would make it pos-
sible to significantly increase the use of expert knowledge and
experience of nongovernmental organizations (B2), reduce the
knowledge deficit related to climate change among the local
community (B6), and eliminate the barrier related to the lack
of adequate education for adaptation and mitigation to climate
change (B7). On the other hand, the development of new ed-
ucational programs would significantly improve the quality of
education and the level of environmental awareness of the
public (D1), as well as improving the conditions for introducing
new strategic approaches and developing comprehensible ac-
tion programs (D2). Appropriate changes in educational pro-
grams should also lead to a readiness to engage in social
dialogue among future generations (D5).
The second of the needs assigned to the sphere of knowledge
is the promotion of comprehensive lifelong learning aimed at
generations, with emphasis on decision-makers (N2), which was
indicated by representatives of all sectors. Similar to the need
of N1, it postulates a profound reform of the education system
by adopting the principle of lifelong learning for all citizens.
FIG. 5. Barriers, drivers, and needs for key stakeholders’ engagement in climate actions. The information in square brackets shows the
abbreviations of the sectors of the quadruple helix, whose representatives formulated a given need: academia and education (AE),
business (B), government (G), and civil society organizations (CSO).
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 563
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
In this context, this action can contribute to better use, not only
of scientific knowledge but also of citizens’ knowledge, based
on a participatory approach and development, mainly by
NGOs as well as other representatives of civil society and local
experts (weakening barrier B2). Introducing and consolidating
the lifelong learning principle into the education system can
make an important contribution to improve the quality of edu-
cation, stimulated by growing expectations from an increasingly
conscious society (D1), as well as to increasing the availability of
data, scientific knowledge (D3), and good practice on cocreation
and social participation (D4, D5). Addressing this need should
have positive effects on society (B6) and raise awareness of
social capital (B4). Weakening the latter barrier is particularly
important to increase the activity and cooperation of different
social groups in the decision-making process.
Two of eight identified needs (N3, N4) concerned building a
culture of dialogue between key actors of the local cocreation
system and strengthening the level of social capital, which
determines the involvement of the local community in activi-
ties for the benefit of CCA&M, belong to the realm of values
(Figs. 5 and 6).
The need of mapping and enhancement of social capital and
its usage to achieve CCA&M goals (N3) was indicated by
representatives of business and local authorities. On the one
hand, it provides opportunities to involve local experts ade-
quately in current needs and conditions (D2); on the other
hand, it strengthens dialogue and stimulates openness of
stakeholders to solve problems (D5). Mapping of social capital
makes it possible to collect information on existing solutions
and practices, their levels of effectiveness, and scalability (D4).
As a result, decision-makers and/or leaders obtain valuable
information that increases their awareness of the social capital
they possess and its usefulness (B4). The participants in the
workshop stressed that knowledge of social capital provides a
chance to strengthen social consultations, the potential of
which is currently underused (B5).
The second need within the framework of the realm of
values—building a dialogue culture (with the support of medi-
ators, if needed) (N4)—was strongly emphasized by the rep-
resentatives of CSOs whose experience in this area was rather
negative. In the examples cited, the stakeholders’ specific in-
terests were too important to build consensus in the spirit of
social dialogue (B3). Building a constructive dialogue and in-
stilling its principles from an early age provides an opportunity
to make better use of the knowledge and experience of civil
society (B2) and the potential inherent in the social capital of
the particular region (B4). Shaping a culture of dialogue and
the ability to reach a common understanding strengthens other
factors that foster cocreation, including quality of education
and social awareness (D1), application of a strategic approach
to climate action (D2), accessibility and dissemination of good
practices in climate cooperation (D4), and openness of stake-
holders to dialogue and cooperation in order to address
problems and conflicts (D5).
The realm of institutions covered four needs related to the
development of new communication channels, development of
coherent action strategies, strengthening cooperation with the
world of science, and increasing the involvement of its repre-
sentatives in climate actions (Figs. 5 and 6).
Development of new channels of communication (including
social media) using not sophisticated but, rather, simple lan-
guage for transferring knowledge into practice (N5) was re-
ported by all representatives of the quadruple helix. Meeting
this need would be conducive mainly to reducing the barrier
formulated as sophisticated language and complicated data sys-
tem (B8). The creation of new, simpler forms of communication
FIG. 6. Relations between the needs, barriers, and drivers for key stakeholders’ engagement in
climate actions.
564 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
would also significantly increase the use of local experts and the
knowledge and experiences of NGOs (B2) by launching an
efficient flow of knowledge and information between stake-
holders. In addition, it would reduce the adverse impact of low
awareness and insufficient knowledge of CCA&M among the
wider local community (B6). Satisfying the discussed need by
weakening the described barriers at the same time may con-
tribute to raising the level of education and society’s sensitivity
to the problems of climate change and the need for cooperation
in this area (D1). At the same time, it can be expected that the
diversification of communication, while simplifying the lan-
guage of communication, will increase the availability of
knowledge and scientific data on counteracting and adapting to
climate change (D3).
The second need assigned to the realm of institutions con-
cerned the elaboration of coherent goals and strategies for
CCA&M (N6), as indicated by representatives of entrepre-
neurs, civic organizations, and local authorities. The develop-
ment of common goals and ways of achieving them within the
framework of climate actions would allow reduction of the
negative impact of as many as seven barriers. Excessive levels
of bureaucracy would be reduced to the greatest extent (B1),
the problem of conflicting motivations of various stakeholder
groups would be solved (B3), and conditions would be created
for improving the quality of broadly understood climate edu-
cation (B7). Moreover, the coherence of goals and strategies
for CCA&M may limit the insufficient involvement of local
experts and negligible use of the experience and knowledge of
NGOs (B2). At the same time, the effect of this measure would
improve the position of climate challenges on the list of de-
velopment priorities formulated by local governments (B6)
and would also lead to better cooperation between local au-
thorities and entrepreneurs in the field of changes in regula-
tions affecting enterprise operations (B9). The development of
coherent targets and strategies for adaptation and mitigation of
climate change would effectively strengthen four of the drivers
identified, including, in particular, improvement of the quality
of the strategic approach and defining a clear climate change
action plan (D2) and creating an atmosphere conducive to
openness and dialogue between stakeholders (D5). In addi-
tion, the definition of coherent objectives and strategies would
lead to an increase in the quality of education and public
ecological awareness (D1), as well as increasing the chances of
allocating an adequate amount of civil budget resources to
climate action (D6).
A great importance has been attached to strengthening the
collaboration between business and science (N7), as indicated
by representatives of all stakeholder groups. This should in-
crease the use of local expertise (B2) and lead to a better
mutual understanding of the specificities of each group’s ap-
proach (B3). Moreover, intensified contacts between them may
lead to the use of language that would facilitate communication
between stakeholders (B8). In addition, it may help to reduce
the barrier related to the lack of involvement of entrepreneurs
in the process of formulating legislation affecting their activi-
ties (B9). Strengthening cooperation between science and
business should stimulate most drivers. It should contribute to
improving the quality of education (D1) by taking into account
the needs of the local labor market and by involving entre-
preneurs with practical experience in the education process.
Another reinforced factor will be the improvement of access to
scientific knowledge by entrepreneurs (D3), who, thanks to
contacts with scientists, will have more knowledge about, for
example, innovative solutions or existing databases. On the
other hand, scientists, thanks to cooperation with entrepre-
neurs, could more easily identify good practices in the field of
climate action and their results (D4). The high level of coop-
eration between representatives of the world of science and
business should also directly increase their openness to dia-
logue (D5) thanks to the positive feedback effect.
The need to develop cooperation between stakeholders is
firmly linked to the strengthening of the engagement of scientists
in climate action (N8), as perceived by representatives of al-
most all stakeholder groups, with the exception of science and
education. In particular, CSOs have accused scientists of lack
of commitment to bottom-up climate action and interaction
with other stakeholders. Changing this by reinforcing the in-
volvement of scientists in climate action should result in im-
proved communication, moving away from difficult and often
hermetic scientific jargon (B8) and, thereby, increasing the
importance of public knowledge about climate change (B6). It
is also expected to reduce the differences in objectives and
motivation between the different actors in climate actions
(B3). Increased involvement of scientists in cooperative cli-
mate action will improve the availability of scientific knowl-
edge and data on climate change, including on how to tackle its
effects and adaptation (D3). More socially engaged scientists
would contribute to improving the quality of education and
consequently public awareness of the effects of climate change
(D1). The abovementioned improvement in communication
between scientists and other participants of climate actions
should strengthen dialogue (D5) and make the climate actions
agenda more visible and clearer for society (D2).
5. Recommendations for enhancing knowledge, values,
and institutions as deep leverage points for cocreation
in climate actions
The structure of the identified needs for action fits clearly
into the three realms of leverage—knowledge, values, and in-
stitutional changes—proposed by Abson et al. (2017). Those
realms are present at different levels of the hierarchy of the
leverage points (parameters, feedback, design, and intent—see
section 3). Realms of knowledge and institutional changes are
placed on the design level, while the values refer to the level of
intent (Fig. 7). All three belong to deep leverage points, and in
our research have been included as factors for transformative
change in climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Needs for action identified by stakeholders as deep leverage
points in the realm of knowledge include elaboration of new
curricula for schools and higher education curricula focused on
climate change challenges (N1) and promotion of compre-
hensive lifelong learning turning to all generations as well as
decision-makers (N2). In this realm, we recommend strength-
ening the transfer of practical knowledge within our quadruple
helix and its use for coherent realization of objectives and
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 565
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
actions. This is a prerequisite for underpinning cocreation, as
the recognition of present practice (section 4b) has shown that
individual stakeholders have a long-established structure and
culture of organization and work, which do not encourage the
flow of knowledge or limit its transfer to one direction. The
flow of knowledge between actors should be multidirectional
and trigger mutual learning processes between stakeholders.
This will strengthen the competences of all stakeholders and
authenticate the decisions taken. Against this background, the
way knowledge is created, shared, and used by stakeholders
could be a key lever for enhancing cocreation processes. This
understanding of leverage points in the realm of knowledge
includes all places to intervene at design level (Fig. 7), that is,
the structure of information flows (leverage point 6), the rules
of the system (leverage point 5), and the power to add, change
or self-organize system structure (leverage point 4).
Also, needs for action as leverage points related to institu-
tional changes include all places to intervene in design. To the
structure of information flows (leverage point 6) can be at-
tributed the development of new channels of communication
(N5). Stakeholders point out that knowledge about climate
change alone will not support climate action unless the right
framework for distribution and easy access to information are
provided. In this area, we recommend opening up to widely
available social media in order to reach a general public with
applied scientific knowledge and information about the CCA&
M’s projects and actions. In the course of the activities within
the institutions, it is important to remember to adapt and
simplify the language of information provision. Using an un-
derstandable language instead of a scientific one fosters better
communication between stakeholders and is an important
factor for stimulating their involvement and creativity in the
cocreation process.
Stakeholders also see the need for institutional changes
that would lead to the elaboration of coherent goals and
strategies for CCA&M, to enhance the engagement of sci-
entists in climate actions and to collaboration between
business and science. In the categories of leverage points, it
refers to the development of a self-organized system of
cocreation (leverage point 4). Stakeholders suggest that the
implementation of these needs in the cocreation process
needs to be supported by the rules and legal regulations that
the institutions are entitled to establish. We therefore rec-
ommend that local government institutions develop coop-
eration standards and mechanisms for their implementation
to create a sustainable framework for stakeholder collabo-
ration. This will be a key lever to trigger stakeholder co-
operation for climate actions (e.g., development of a joint
vision for all the actors involved, improving the level of
sense of agency among stakeholders).
Stakeholders indicate values as deep leverage points. Values
refer to the intent level and are fundamentally important for
cocreations, reflect the normative capacities underlying moti-
vations inspiring actors to work toward a common goal. Thus,
the values define the functionalities of the cocreation system.
In the leverage-points model (Fig. 7), they are referred to as the
main power to transcend paradigms (leverage point 1). Values
influence the actions taken and the way stakeholders cooper-
ate. A common system of values means that we share the same
principles across all quadruple helix elements when deciding
whether to take specific actions. In particular, we recommend
reinforcing the role of knowledge in the creation of these
values, as knowledge-based cocreation leads to a reevaluation
of paradigms. A culture of innovation embraces the written
and unwritten values, norms and attitudes in the system that
influence the way various actors think and act. This is a
decisive factor for the success of the cocreation process
aimed at new relations between various stakeholders, novel
means of communication, and novel solutions addressing
the climate actions. In this context, mapping and enhance-
ment of social capital and building a dialogue culture can
have a decisive impact on CCA&M actions in the regions.
These activities could lead to a transparency of the policy-
making process and the involvement of all stakeholders
FIG. 7. Interpretation of knowledge, values, and institutions as realms of leverage points for cocreation process in climate action.
566 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
from the start of the process with a bottom-up approach and
conflict-sensitive adaptation measures taken.
We assigned comparable results obtained for cities in dif-
ferent countries to the categories of needs for action identified
for Pozna
n to find out to what extent our results are consistent
with other studies (Table 2).
The comparison shows that relevant categories of needs
identified in other cities are very similar. The perceived needs
are related to low awareness of climate change among society
and authorities. All presented cases emphasize a lacking institu-
tional tradition of participatory governance or using noneffective
methods to knowledge sharing, information, and communica-
tion exchange. We confirm the role of regulatory requirements
that can become barriers if they are inadequate or strong
drivers if they are adequate—motivating and enabling inno-
vation, which was also exposed in all the case studies cited.
The analysis reveals needs at the realm of values that are
specific for Pozna
n such as the strong dependence of cocreation
process on building a culture of dialogue and openness to com-
promise that results from an existing low level of social capital.
6. Conclusions
The research presented herein is an attempt to determine
the conditions for cocreation of innovative knowledge for cli-
mate actions against the background of recognition of actual
activity and cooperation of stakeholders. On the basis of the
quadruple helix concept, we took into account representatives
of academia and education, business, local government, and
civil society. The results of the present practice recognition
showed that the existing stakeholders’ cooperation is usually
of a superficial character or adopts the simplest forms of
TABLE 2. Needs for action for cocreation on CCA&M identified in Pozna
n and findings of other comparable studies (source: authors’ own
research and authors’ study of the cited references).
Categories of needs for actions in other studies
Categories of needs for action
identified for Pozna
n
Germany (Munich,
Berlin, and Sanger-
hausen; Wamsler
2017,2016;
Lehmann
et al. 2015)
France (Annecy,
Sète, Dunkerque,
Cergy-Pontoise,
Royan, and Agen;
Simonet and
Leseur 2019)
Ireland [Skibbereen
(County Cork) and
Clontarf (County
Dublin); Clarke
et al. 2016]
United States
(New York;
Bloomberg
et al. 2010)
Peru (Lima) and
Chile (Santiago)
(Lehmann
et al. 2015)
Knowledge
Rise of public and decision-
makers’ awareness
✓✓ ✓✓✓
Rise of the position of climate
actions in the hierarchy of values
✓✓ ✓✓✓
Transferring knowledge into
practice
✓✓ ✓
Institution
Elaboration of coherent goals and
strategies for CCA&M using the
experience and knowledge of
scientists and local experts
✓✓ ✓✓✓
Development of new channels of
communication (including the
social media)
✓✓ ✓✓✓
Establish the rules and legal
regulations that require systems
thinking and increased
stakeholder involvement
✓✓ ✓✓✓
Values
Sharing the common system of
values (social and cultural) when
deciding whether to take specific
action
✓✓ ✓
Mapping and enhancement of
social capital and its usage to
achieve CCA&M goal
✓✓ ✓
Building a dialogue culture
Openness to compromise
The exclusion of particular
interests
✓
Transparency of policy-making
process
✓
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 567
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
consultation or knowledge transfer. The local government
positions itself as a sovereign policy maker and administrator
of budgetary resources. Both of these areas are very important
for all other stakeholders, but in both cases the relationship
with them is not a partnership. Academia and education are
not systemically integrated with the other groups. Individual
representatives are invited or share their expertise on their
own initiative, get involved in climate action programming, or
incorporate climate change content into educational pro-
grams. Similarly, business, as a rule, is not included in climate
policy. Its activities are reactive in nature, taking advantage
of the opportunities offered by subsidizing activities related
to CCA&M, for example, switching to low-carbon energy
sources or building renewable energy installations. It should
be added that large companies finance CSOs’ environmental
awareness projects, which are related to CSR policy. Social
organizations are primarily active in building social capital in
relation to CCA&M. Among the activities identified, projects
for raising public environmental awareness prevail. Another
form is the organization of campaigns encouraging actions for
the benefit of the environment, including climate actions
against environmentally unfriendly projects and climate pro-
tection protests. CSOs participate in dialogue and debate
mainly with representatives of local authorities and the media,
promoting increased CCA&M activities.
Next, we systematized the opinions of each stakeholder
group on barriers, drivers, and needs for action as cocreation
factors. Thanks to the collected opinions of representatives of
individual stakeholder groups, the needs for action for reduc-
ing barriers and supporting drivers, which determine the level
of stakeholder groups’ engagement in cocreation of climate
action, have been identified and structured. Individual needs
for action were treated as deep leverage points related to the
acquisition of new knowledge, giving due importance to cli-
mate action in the system of values and changes in the func-
tioning of institutions, which will enable transformational
changes.
Needs for actions specifically highlighted by stakeholders
refer to the realm of knowledge. The development of
knowledge reinforces the scientific basis for decision-makers’
decisions, for the rationalization of social behavior, and for
the creation of an innovative education system including the
training of specialists in the field of climate change pre-
vention and adaptation. A great importance has been at-
tached to knowledge developed through lifelong learning of
all generations, which raises public awareness and raises the
position of climate actions in the hierarchy of values. As a
consequence, social capital and related readiness to active
participation and cocreate innovative and effective actions
are growing.
The second group of needs for actions connects to the value
system. The needs identified by the stakeholders result from
the lack of constructive dialogue, low culture of dialogue, re-
luctance to build compromise, and lack of agreement over
particular interests. Needs for action also pointed out the need
for institutional changes that will create conditions conducive
to the development of common goals and strategies for
CCA&M by all stakeholders. This will be reflected in the
strengthening of collaboration between stakeholders as well
as strengthening the engagement of scientists and local ex-
perts in climate actions. In this area of cooperation, stake-
holders see a need to develop channels of communication,
both through the use of social media to establish contact,
exchange information, and maintain links, and also by
simplifying the language of communication.
The conducted research allowed us to verify the functioning
of the quadruple helix for climate action in the Pozna
n
Agglomeration. A leverage-points perspective in our research
allowed the recognition of influential leverage points relating
to change in realms, which can lead to a transformative change
in a complex system of cocreation for climate action.
We believe that our case study can provide a reference point
for regions at a similar level of development, and the methods
used as well as the results obtained can be applied to empower
local stakeholders in climate actions.
Acknowledgments. The study was conducted within the
project TeRRIFICA, that receives funds from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme
under Grant 824489. We are grateful and feel privileged to
have worked with all of the stakeholders in Pozna
nAgglomeration
involved in the TeRRIFICA. The authors thank the two reviewers
for their valuable comments on the earlier versions of this paper.
REFERENCES
Abson, D. J., and Coauthors, 2017: Leverage points for sustain-
ability transformation. Ambio,46, 30–39, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
Ackermann, F., and C. Eden, 2011: Strategic management of
stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Plann.,44,
179–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001.
Adger, W. N., and Coauthors, 2009: Are there social limits to ad-
aptation to climate change? Climatic Change,93, 335–354,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
Allen, M. R., D. J. Frame, K. Frieler, W. Hare, R. Knutti,
M. Meinshausen, N. Meinshausen, and S. C. B. Raper, 2009:
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming
to 28C. Nature,458, 1158–1162, https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature08017.
Amundsen, H., F. Berglund, and H. Westskog, 2010: Overcoming
barriers to climate change adaptation—A question of multi-
level governance? Environ. Plann.,28C, 276–289, https://
doi.org/10.1068/c0941.
Arnkil, R., A. Järvensivu, P. Koski, and T. Piirainen, 2010:
Exploring quadruple helix: Outlining user-oriented inno-
vation models. Quadruple Helix Research for the CLIQ
Project Final Rep., 131 pp., https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi510.1.1.864.3864&rep5rep1&type5
pdf#:;:text5The%20main%20objective%20was%20to,to%
20support%20innovation%20more%20effectively.&text5
Quadruple%20Helix%20(QH)%2C%20with,and%20user
%2Dcentric%20innovation%20poli.
Aylett, A., 2014: Progress and challenges in the urban governance
of climate change: Results of a global survey. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and
Planning Rep., 67 pp., http://espace.inrs.ca/id/eprint/2835/1/
Aylett-2014-Progress%20and%20Challenges%20in%20the
%20%20Ur.pdf.
568 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
Bai, X., and Coauthors, 2018: Six research priorities for cities and
climate change. Nature,555, 23–25, https://doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-018-02409-z.
Barnaud, C. E., and Coauthors, 2018: Ecosystem services, social
interdependencies, and collective action: A conceptual
framework. Ecol. Soc.,23,15,https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
09848-230115.
Barnett, M. L., 2019: The business case for corporate social re-
sponsibility: A critique and an indirect path forward. Bus. Soc.,
58, 167–190, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316660044.
Bloomberg, M. R., J. D. Sachs, and G. M. Small, 2010: Climate
change adaptation in New York City: Building a risk man-
agement response. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.,1196, 1–3, https://
doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-6632.2009.05415.X.
Bowler, D. E., L. Buyung-Ali, T. M. Knight, and A. S. Pullin, 2010:
Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review
of the empirical evidence. Landscape Urban Plann.,97, 147–
155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006.
Carayannis, E. G., and R. Rakhmatullin, 2014: The quadruple/
quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strate-
gies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and be-
yond. J. Knowl. Econ.,5, 212–239, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13132-014-0185-8.
——, E. Grigoroudis, and D. Pirounakis, 2015: Quadruple inno-
vation helix and smart specialization knowledge production
and national competitiveness. Tech Monit.,32 (3), 19–27.
——, G. Acikdilli, and C. Ziemnowicz, 2019: Creative destruction
in international trade: Insights from quadruple and quintuple
innovation helix model. J. Knowl. Econ.,11, 1489–1508,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00599-z.
Cavallini, S., R. Soldi, J. Friedl, and M. Volpe, 2016: Using the
Quadruple Helix Approach to Accelerate the Transfer of
Research and Innovation Results to Regional Growth.
Committee of the Regions, European Union, 158 pp.
Chaudhary, S., A. D. McGregor, D. Houston, and N. Chettri, 2018:
Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A dis-
aggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits
in Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv.,29A, 99–115, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020.
Chingala, G., C. Mapiye, E. Raffrenato, L. Hoffman, and
K. Dzama, 2017: Determinants of smallholder’ farmers
perceptions of impact of climate change on beef produc-
tion in Malawi. Climatic Change,142, 129–141, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1924-1.
Churski, P., K. Fagiewicz, T. Herodowicz, P. Kaczmarek,
P. Lupa, A. Mizgajski, J. Morawska-Jancelewicz, and
D. Ochota, 2020: State of the art of climate change adap-
tation and mitigation at Pozna
n Agglomeration (Poland).
TeRRIFICA Project Rep., 52 pp., https://terrifica.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/TeRRIFICA_POZNAN_state_of_art_
OnlinePublication.pdf.
Clarke, D., C. Murphy, and I. Lorenzoni, 2016: Barriers to trans-
formative adaptation: Responses to flood risk in Ireland.
J. Extreme Events,03, 1650010, https://doi.org/10.1142/
S234573761650010X.
Colls, N., and N. Ash, 2009: Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A
Natural Response to Climate Change. IUCN, 16 pp.
Etzkovitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff, 1997: Universities and the Global
Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–
Government Relations. Pinter, 256 pp.
Fischer, J., and M. Riechers, 2019: A leverage pointes perspective
on sustainability. People Nat.,1, 115–120, https://doi.org/
10.1002/pan3.13.
Forrester, J. W., 1969: Urban Dynamics. Productivity Press,
285 pp.
——, 1971: World Dynamics. Productivity Press, 144 pp.
Googins, B. K., and S. A. Rochlin, 2000: Creating the partnership
society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-
sectoral partnerships. Bus. Soc. Rev.,105, 127–144, https://
doi.org/10.1111/0045-3609.00068.
Heikkinen, M., A. Karimo, J. Klein, S. Juhola, and T. Y. Anttila,
2020: Transnational municipal networks and climate change
adaptation: A study of 377 cities. J. Cleaner Prod.,257, 120474,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120474.
Hein, A. M., M. Jankovic, W. Feng, R. Farel, J. H. Yune, and
B. Yannou, 2017: Stakeholder power in industrial symbioses:
A stakeholder value network approach. J. Cleaner Prod.,
148, 923–933, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.136.
Hunt, A., and P. Watkiss, 2011: Climate change impacts and ad-
aptation in cities: A review of the literature. Climatic Change,
104, 13–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. C. B. Field
et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp., http://
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-
PartA_FINAL.pdf.
Jawgiel, K., 2017: Analiza spływu powierzchniowego i lokalnych
podtopie
n na skutek deszczy nawalnych w Poznaniu na pod-
stawie modelu Cloudburst (Analysis of surface runoff and
local flooding due to torrential rains in Pozna
n based on the
Cloudburst model). Technol. Wody,4, 34–37.
Kabisch, N., H. Korn, J. Stadler, and A. Bonn, 2017: Nature-
Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban
Areas—Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice.
Springer Open, 342 pp.
Kaczmarek, T., 2017: Dynamics and directions of development of
residential suburbanization in the Pozna
nAgglomeration(in
Polish). Acta Univ. Lodz. Folia Geogr. Socio-Oecon.,27, 81–98.
Kuenkel, P., 2019: Stewarding Sustainability Transformations.
Springer Nature, 321 pp., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
03691-1.
Kundzewicz, Z., and P. Kowalczak, 2008: Zmiany Klimatu i Ich
Skutki (Climate Change and Its Effects). Kurpisz, 206 pp.
Lam, D. P. M., A. I. Horcea-Milcu, J. Fischer, J. D. Peukert, and
D. J. Lang, 2019: Three principles for co-designing sustain-
ability intervention strategies: Experiences from southern
Transylvania. Ambio,49, 1451–1465, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-019-01302-x.
Lee, T., and C. Koski, 2015: Multilevel governance and urban cli-
mate change mitigation. Environ. Plann.,33C, 1501–1517,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614700.
Lehmann, P., M. Brenck, O. Gebhardt, S. Schaller, and E. Süßbauer,
2015: Barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning:
Analytical framework and evidence from cities in Latin America
and Germany. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Global Change,20, 75–97,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9480-0.
Majkowska, A., L. Kolendowicz, M. Półrolniczak, J. Hauke, and
B. Czernecki, 2017: The urban heat island in the City of
Pozna
n as derived from Landsat 5 TM. Theor. Appl. Climatol.,
128, 769–783, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1737-6.
McAdam, M., K. Miller, and R. McAdam, 2015: Situated re-
gional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder
perspective. Technovation,50-51, 69–78, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.002.
Meadows, D. H., 1999: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a
System. Sustainability Institute, 21 pp.
JULY 2021 F A G I E W I C Z E T A L . 569
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
——, D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens, 1972: The
Limits to Growth. Universe Press, 211 pp.
Müller, N., W. Kuttler, and A. B. Barlag, 2014: Counter acting
urban climate change: Adaptation measures and their effect
on the thermal comfort. Theor. Appl. Climatol.,115, 243–257,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-013-0890-4.
Munang, R., I. Thiaw, K. Alverson, M. Mumba, J. Liu, and
M. Rivington, 2013: Climate change and ecosystem-based
adaptation: A new pragmatic approach to buffering climate
change impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability,5, 67–71,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001.
OECD, 2011: Fostering innovation to address social challenges:
Workshop proceedings. Secretary-General of the OECD
Rep., 99 pp., https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327.pdf.
Parysek, J., and L. Mierzejewska, 2006: Pozna
n. Cities,23, 291–305,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.04.001.
Picketts, I. M., S. J. Déry, and J. A. Curry, 2013: Incorporating climate
change adaptation into local plans. J. Environ. Plann. Manage.,
57, 37–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.776951.
Pozna
n City Council, 2014: Low carbon economy plan for Pozna
n
Agglomeration. Accessed 9 March 2020, 308 pp., https://
www.poznan.pl/mim/main/-,p,38278,38355.html.
——, 2019a: The climate adaptation plan for the city of Pozna
nto
2030. Accessed 9 March 2020, https://bip.poznan.pl/bip/
uchwaly/uchwala-nr-x-144-viii-2019-z-dnia-2019-04-16,78779/.
——, 2019b: Strategy for rainwater and meltwater management
for the city of Pozna
n (SRMM). Pozna
n City Hall Draft Doc.,
154 pp.
Reckien, D., and Coauthors, 2018: How are cities planning to re-
spond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans
from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Cleaner Prod.,191, 207–219,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.220.
Reyes-García,V.,A.Fernández-Llamazares, M. Guèze,A.Garcés,
M. Mallo, M. Vila-Gómez, and M. Vilaseca, 2016: Local indica-
tors of climate change: The potential contribution of local
knowledge to climate research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate
Change,7, 109–124, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.374.
Ricart, S., J. Olcina, and A. M. Rico, 2019: Evaluating public atti-
tudes and farmers’ beliefs towards climate change adaptation:
Awareness, perception, and populism at European level.
Land,8, 24, https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND8010004.
Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey, 2016:
Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecol.
Soc.,21, 47, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247.
Simonet, G., and A. Leseur, 2019: Barriers and drivers of adapta-
tion to climate change—A field study of ten French local
authorities. Climatic Change,155, 621–637, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-019-02484-9.
Torabi, N. L., A. Mata, A. Gordon, G. Garrard, W. Wescott,
P. Dettmann, and S. A. Bekessy, 2016: The money or the trees:
What drives landholders’ participation in biodiverse carbon
plantings? Global Ecol. Conserv.,7, 1–11, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gecco.2016.03.008.
Vallaeys, F., 2013: University social responsibility: A mature and
responsible definition. Higher education in the world
5—Knowledge, engagement & higher education: Contributing to
social change. Global University Network for Innovation Rep.,
88–96, http://www.guninetwork.org/files/ii.4_1.pdf.
Van Well, L., and S. L. Scherbenske, 2014: Towards a macrore-
gional climate change adaptation strategy in the Baltic Sea
region. Environ. Plann.,32C, 1100–1116, https://doi.org/10.1068/
c11243.
Wamsler, C., 2016: From risk governance to city–citizen collaboration:
Capitalizing on individual adaptation to climate change. Environ.
Policy Gov.,26, 184–204, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1707.
——, 2017: Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation
planning: Transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake?
Environ. Sci. Policy,75, 148–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2017.03.016.
Wang W., F. van Noorloos, and T. Spit, 2020: Stakeholder power re-
lations in land value capture: Comparing public (China) and
private (U.S.) dominant regimes. Land Use Policy,91, 104357,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104357.
Withmarsh, L., 2011: Scepticism and uncertainty about climate
change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time.
Global Environ. Change,21, 690–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016.
Zwierzchowska, I., K. Fagiewicz, L. Poni_
zy,P.Lupa,and
A. Mizgajski, 2019: Introducing nature-based solutions
into urban policy—Facts and gaps. Case study of Pozna
n.
Land Use Policy,85, 161–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landusepol.2019.03.025.
570 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/17/21 07:39 AM UTC
