Modelling the interplay between sectoral power asymmetries and the use of climate services

Abstract

Effective climate adaptation requires the integration of equitable and evidence-based decision-making tools and data, such as climate services (CS) products. However, the development and use of CS products are often shaped by stakeholder power asymmetries, which can influence who benefits the most and who remains vulnerable. This study uses a system dynamic modelling approach to evaluate how these power imbalances affect sectoral outcomes and the overall sustainability of the human-environmental system. Using the island of Crete, Greece, as a case, we simulated three scenarios reflecting different configurations of CS prioritization across five key sectors: tourism, water, energy, transport, and agriculture. Results show that prioritizing a single dominant sector amplifies adaptation benefits for that sector but increases systemic vulnerabilities elsewhere. Equitable prioritization across sectors fosters more balanced power distributions and improved sustainability outcomes. The findings highlight the need to rethink stakeholder engagement frameworks, such as the Co-create, Co-design, and Co-produce approach, by embedding systems thinking and stakeholder inclusivity from the outset of CS development. This study underscores the critical role of transdisciplinary modelling in informing just and sustainable climate adaptation strategies. Practical Implications: This study demonstrates that the effectiveness and fairness of climate services (CS) depend not only on technical quality but on who participates in their design and how power is distributed among sectors. The Crete case study shows that when CS co-creation is dominated by a single powerful sector, such as tourism, adaptation benefits become concentrated to that sector, while vulnerabilities increase in less influential sectors, particularly water management and agriculture. For practitioners, this highlights that power asymmetries are a practical design risk that must be addressed explicitly. The key lesson from Crete, therefore, is that climate services that prioritize dominant sectors can improve short-term efficiency but undermine system-wide resilience. Practitioners should therefore treat equitable participation as a core operational requirement, not an aspirational goal. Key recommendations for practitioners: i. Map sectoral power at the outset of CS development: Model results show that unexamined power hierarchies shape adaptation outcomes. Practitioners should systematically identify which sectors control resources, data, and decision-making authority, and use this mapping to adjust participation rules during co-creation. ii. Ensure balanced, cross-sectoral participation: In Crete, only the equi-sector scenario, where all sectors had equal participatory weight, produced system-wide resilience gains. CS processes should therefore assign structured roles to less powerful but system-critical actors (e.g., smallholder farmers), rather than relying on voluntary or informal inclusion. iii. Use systems-based tools to reveal trade-offs before implementation: The Crete case shows how sectoral prioritization (e.g., tourism water use) can cascade into higher energy demand and food stress. System