Climatic Change

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 61–80 | Cite as

The politics of “usable” knowledge: examining the development of climate services in Tanzania

  • Meaghan DalyEmail author
  • Lisa Dilling


The field of climate services has arisen rapidly out of a desire to enable climate science to meet the information needs of society to respond to climate variability and change. In order for knowledge to be “usable” for decision-making, in the field of climate adaptation and beyond, it must meet the criteria of credibility, salience, and legitimacy (Cash et al., PNAS 100:8086–8091, 2003). Deliberate “co-production” of knowledge between “producers” and “users” has the potential to increase usability for decision-making and policy in some contexts. While co-production is increasingly advanced as an instrumental approach to facilitate the production of usable climate services, such efforts have paid scant attention to the role of power relations. In this article, we bring together literature on normative approaches to co-production—which treats co-production as an instrumental means to an end—with analytical interpretations of co-production within the field of Science and Technology Studies to examine efforts to develop usable climate services in Tanzania. We show that without reflexive processes that are explicitly attentive to power dynamics, normative co-production within climate services development can serve to reinforce, rather than overcome, power imbalances among actors.


Usable knowledge Climate services Co-production Boundary work Tanzania 



The authors thank three anonymous reviewers and the guest editor, Sophie Webber, for their insightful comments, which greatly improved the article. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation SES—Division of Science, Technology, and Society (Grant No. 1354542), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Climate Change Resilient Development Small Grants Program (Grant No. CCRDACD0001), and the University of Colorado Boulder Innovative Seed Grant Program. The authors thank Dr. Mara Goldman, Dr. Eric Lovell, Dr. Elifuraha Laltaika, Mr. Alais Morindat, and Mr. Shayo Alakara for their support of the project. The authors are also grateful to residents in the villages of Arkaria and Kiserian, the Tanzanian Meteorological Agency, and the many other individuals and organizations in Tanzania who participated in this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Data collection undertaken with human subjects was reviewed and approved the University of Colorado Boulder Internal Review Board (IRB) under Protocol No. 14-0017 and the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology under research permits No. 2013-105-NA-2013-7, No. 2014-63-ER-2013-17, and No. 2015-94-ER-2013-17.


  1. Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change 26(3), 413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazeley P, Jackson K (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Reid WV, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D (2006) Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasseur GP, Gallardo L (2016) Climate services: lessons learned and future prospects. Earth’s Future 4:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremer S, Meisch S (2017) Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 8:e482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bremer S, Wardekker A, Dessai S, Sobolowski S, Slaattelid R, van der Sluijs J (2019) Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services. Climate Services 13:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(4):465–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chilvers J, Kearnes M (eds) (2015) Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Clausewitz C (1982) On war. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Daly ME, Yanda PZ, and West JJ (2015) Climate Change Policy Inventory and Analysis for Tanzania. CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo. Report 2015:5Google Scholar
  13. Daly ME, West JJ, & Yanda PZ (2016) Establishing a baseline for monitoring and evaluating user satisfaction with climate services in Tanzania. CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo, Report 2016:2Google Scholar
  14. Daly M, Dessai S (2018) Examining the goals of the Regional Climate Outlook Forums: what role for user engagement? Weather Climate Soc 10:693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Esguerra A, Beck S, Lidskog R (2017) Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES legitimization politics. Global Environ Polit 17:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher S, Dodman D, Van Epp M, Garside B (2018) The usability of climate information in sub-national planning in India, Kenya and Uganda: the role of social learning and intermediary organisations. Clim Chang 151:219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galvin KA (2009) Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu Rev Anthropol 38:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgeson L, Maslin M, Poessinouw M (2017) Global disparity in the supply of commercial weather and climate information services. Sci Adv 3:e1602632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GFCS (2013) Climate services adaptation programme in Africa: building resilience in disaster risk management, food security, nutrition and health. Proposal to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbons M (ed) (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Gieryn TF (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldman M (2006) Imperial nature. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldman MJ, Turner MD, Daly ME (2018) A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: epistemology, ontology, and ethics. WIREs Climate Change:e526. Google Scholar
  25. Hewitt C, Mason S, Walland D (2012) The global framework for climate services. Nat Clim Chang 2:831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson DL (2001) Once intrepid warriors: gender, ethnicity, and the cultural politics of Maasai development. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodgson DL (2011) Being Maasai, Becoming Indigenous: Postcolonial Politics in a Neoliberal World. Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoppe R, Wesselink A, Cairns R (2013) Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IIED (2011) Strengthening voices: how pastoralist communities and local government are shaping strategies for adaptive environmental management and poverty reduction in Tanzania’s drylands. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum. Scholar
  30. IIED (2016) Decentralising climate finance to reach the most vulnerable. International Institute for Environment and Development.
  31. Jasanoff S (1996) Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science. Social Studies of Science 26(2), 393–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jasanoff S (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kruk MC, Parker B, Marra JJ, Werner K, Heim R, Vose R, Malsale P (2017) Engaging with users of climate information and the coproduction of knowledge. Weather Climate Soc 9:839–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (2005) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Leith P, Vanclay F (2015) Translating science to benefit diverse publics: engagement pathways for linking climate risk, uncertainty, and agricultural identities. Sci Technol Hum Values 40:939–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lofland J (2006) Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci Public Policy 38:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1), 17–38Google Scholar
  40. McNie EC (2008) Co-producing useful climate science for policy: lessons from the RISA program Doctoral dissertation. University of, Colorado at BoulderGoogle Scholar
  41. Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Climate Soc 7:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller CA, Wyborn C (2018) Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ Sci Policy.
  43. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW (2006) Information and influence. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) Global environmental assessments: information and influence, pp 307–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mollel HA & Tollenaar A (2013) Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions. International Journal of Public Administration 36(5), 344–353Google Scholar
  45. Muñoz-Erickson TA (2014) Co-production of knowledge-action systems in urban sustainable governance: The KASA approach. Environ Sci Policy 37:182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Reilly K (2005) Ethnographic methods. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Odora Hoppers CA (2011) Toward the integration of knowledge systems: Challenges to thought and practice. In: Harding S (ed) The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 389–402Google Scholar
  48. Parkipuny MLO (1979) Some crucial aspects of the Maasai predicament. In: Coulson J (ed) African socialism in practice: the Tanzanian experience. Spokesman Publishing, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  49. Prokopy LS, Carlton JS, Haigh T, Lemos MC, Mase AS, Widhalm M (2017) Useful to usable: developing usable climate science for agriculture. Clim Risk Manag 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (2005) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage Publications, Los AngelesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schut M, van Paassen A, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2013) Towards dynamic research configurations: a framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Sci Public Policy 41:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharma V, Orindi V, Hesse C, Pattison J, Anderson S (2014) Supporting local climate adaptation planning and implementation through local governance and decentralised finance provision. Dev Pract 24:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. TNRF (2012) Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in drylands development planning in Tanzania.
  56. Turnhout E, Stuiver M, Klostermann J, Harms B, Leeuwis C (2013) New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci Public Policy 40:354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaughan C, Dessai S (2014) Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 5:587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vincent K, Daly M, Scannell C, Leathes B (2018) What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? Climate Services 12:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Visbeck M (2008) From climate assessment to climate services. Nat Geosci 1:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watson-Verran H, Turnbull D (1995) Science and other indigenous knowledge systems. In: Jasanoff S et al (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  61. WMO (2011) Climate knowledge for action: a global framework for climate services—empowering the most vulnerable. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  62. Woolgar S, Latour B (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Wyborn C (2015) Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob Environ Chang 30:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1:281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yanda PZ, West JJ, & Daly ME (2015) Institutional Analysis for Climate Services Development and Delivery in Tanzania: A Report for the Global Framework for Climate Services Adaptation Program in Africa. CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo, Report 2015:2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of New EnglandBiddefordUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental SciencesUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations