Assessing the value of climate services for public authorities in Europe

Methodological approaches for assessing the values and benefits of Climate Services (CS) range from quantitative methods (cost-benefit analyses, simulations) to qualitative ones (case studies, interviews). Leading frameworks stress the importance of holistic, context-sensitive evaluation that integrates stakeholder engagement and covers economic, social, and environmental dimensions. It is necessary to consider both tangible and intangible benefits of CS, as well as continuous stakeholder engagement for a deliberate, structured approach to CS evaluation, rooted in transparent methodology, user-centered design, and explicit articulation of both benefits and limitations. The contribution from Gonzalez Romero et al. (2025) advances CS evaluation science by empirically grounding these principles in the perspectives of public-sector users and standardization processes. Drawing on in-depth interviews with public authorities across different European countries, the study analyses how municipalities understand, use, and evaluate CS. Results show that climate risks, particularly flooding and heat stress, are increasingly taken into consideration for decision-making, including new urban developments, major infrastructure projects, and changes to zoning and land use decisions, often with explicit focus on vulnerable populations. The interviews expressed the need to better understand the uncertainty associated with climate data and how to best communicate this to various stakeholders. These findings reveal that municipalities had a preference for in-house provision of CS if possible. Where this was unfeasible, preference was given to public institutions, such as National Meteorological and Hydrological Services or platforms such as Climate Atlas, due to legitimacy, trust and financial reasons. No interviewees reported relying on any standard when selecting providers. The lack of a clear and cohesive national guidance on CS was identified as a common barrier. Clear institutional and financial barriers, including a lack of both staff and capacity to use the data, were also mentioned. Local knowledge was highlighted as an essential asset for developing adaptation plans that feel realistic, actionable, and trusted by the community. The perceived importance of CS among municipalities varied and was shaped by a combination of institutional structures, political will, financial considerations, and local priorities. The lack of standardisation, clear national guidance, and data accessibility were universal complaints. Consolidated climate data can strengthen the rationale for climate-smart policies, especially where legal mandates are not yet in place. By linking these user-derived perspectives to existing CS evaluation frameworks, this study contributes to a structured, practice-oriented perspective on how CS generates value in policy and planning contexts. References:Gonzalez Romero, C., Ferrari, T., McBride, P. J., Calderaro, C., Taddeo, S., Klose, A., Eckel, F., Hömberg, J., Jaiyeola, A., Jablonski, A., Villwock, A., & Stuparu, D. (2025). Recommended approach to the application of assessment methods and pilot applications case studies. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.169269