Climate services for the Greater Horn of Africa

Interviews exploring practitioner perspectives from Kenya and beyond

Bibliographic Data

ID21791908
AuthorsJacob M Rigby (0000-0001-9653-5007, University of Bristol, corresponding author), Michaelina Almaz Yohannis (0000-0003-2553-3754, University of Nairobi), Chris Preist (0000-0002-5094-5294, University of Bristol), Michael Bliss Singer (0000-0002-6899-2224, University of California, Santa Barbara), Timothy Waema (0000-0002-6451-0363, University of Nairobi), Agnes N Wausi (University of Nairobi), Agnes Wausi (University of Nairobi), Katerina Michaelides (0000-0002-7996-0543, University of California, Santa Barbara)
Year2023
Volume15
Issue3
Pages188-200
Publication date2023-03-16
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueClimate and Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1756-5529 • E-ISSN: 1756-5537
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/17565529.2022.2074350
OpenAlexW4281630036
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited45

Climate and weather services support important decision making in many sectors across the Greater Horn of Africa. Though constantly improving, there is a mismatch between the provision of these services and the needs of target stakeholders. To better understand this, we interviewed 23 practitioners who work with climate, weather, and hydrological information in East Africa, to gain a qualitative understanding of their work and how they use climate services. We found a complex network of stakeholders within this climate services ecosystem, each with their own foci that dictate their information needs and use cases. We found that information is typically transferred from one stakeholder to another by means of a value chain structure. Thematic analysis provided a deeper understanding of participants’ needs and motivations, revealing trust and information suitability as key issues in encouraging uptake. We also found that participants had strong motivations to overcome barriers to improve the livelihoods of end-user communities. We argue for evaluating the broader interconnected climate services ecosystem in a more holistic manner, instead of focusing only on impact in end-user communities, which can lead to the design of better systems and benefits for all stakeholders

Agriculture · Business · Economics · Ecosystem · Ecosystem services · Environmental resource management · Geography · Information needs · Knowledge management · Livelihood · Political science · Public relations · Qualitative research · Sociology · Stakeholder · Thematic analysis · Computer Science · FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance · ICT in Developing Communities · Microfinance and Financial Inclusion · Ecology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access