Phenomenological aspects of decision-making in managing heavy rainfall at the sharp end Open Access

Heavy rainfall, defined as at least 50 mm in one hour or at least 1 mm in one minute in Sweden (SMHI, n.d.), has increasingly demonstrated climate change impact on society (Glaas et al., 2024). Heavy rainfall events are projected to increase in frequency and severity, posing significant risks to Swedish municipalities (Copernicus, 2024; Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency [SCCA], 2023). In Sweden, if global warming continues, precipitation is expected to increase by 10–20% by the end of the century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023; Swedish Meteorological Hydrological Institute, SMHI, 2022). Traditional water management systems such as pipelines, drainage networks and wastewater treatment plants are not designed to cope with the predicted water volumes, leading to damage to infrastructure, loss of power and disruption of transport and communication (Arnbjerg-Nielsen et al., 2013; SCCA, 2023). Thus, Swedish municipalities must enhance their preparedness for heavy rainfall to protect critical infrastructure and essential services (SCCA, 2020).

Climate adaptation involves both environmental and human systems to reduce the impacts of extreme weather events (IPCC, 2022). Adaptive strategies for stormwater management are often implemented in the built environment (e.g. the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, 2010), such as the integration of green into grey infrastructure (Voskamp and van de Ven, 2015). This includes utilizing urban areas to absorb and redirect excess water, preventing localized flooding (Waldhoff et al., 2012). However, despite the increase in recognition of green interventions, Swedish municipalities primarily rely on non-green technical interventions (Hennlock et al., 2023). Research on climate adaptation of human systems has mainly focused on institutional barriers (e.g. Eisenack et al., 2014; Novaes and Marque, 2024) and maladaptation risks (e.g. Schipper, 2020; Styczynski et al., 2014). These studies highlight systemic challenges but overlook the psychological dynamics that shape decision-making at the municipal level (e.g. Biesbroek et al., 2015). How civil servants perceive risks, interpret information and make adaptation decisions remains largely unexplored. This is critical because effective adaptation depends not only on policies and regulations but also on human judgment and behavior in a dynamical context (Biesbroek et al., 2015; Gifford, 2011; Leck and Roberts, 2015; van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019).

Although decision-making is central to the adaptation (Grothmann and Patt, 2005), most of the studies emphasize normative decision-making (e.g. Ferguson et al., 2013; Webb et al., 2019; Webber and Samaras, 2022). This lack of empirical insights into how judgments and decisions are actually made makes the understanding of the challenges at the forefront in climate adaptation rather unclear. Thus, studies on such human-centered experiences in this context are needed. The municipal civil servants can be considered at the sharp end of climate risk management (Butler and Pidgeon, 2011; O’Hare et al., 2016; Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 2017; the Planning and Building Act, 2010; The Environmental Code, 1998), and we consequently investigated their experiences in managing adaptation to heavy rainfall. In this, we used the phenomenological approach of Karlsson (1995) to uncover the meaning of their experiences.

Civil servants in Swedish municipalities working with heavy rainfall adaptation were contacted by e-mail. Those expressing an interest in being interviewed were informed in more detail about the purpose and design of the present study. Dates and times were then set for interviews. Six women and two men between 30 and 63 years of age (Mdn = 41 years; Q₁ = 37 years; Q₃ = 58 years) participated. They had worked with stormwater management and climate adaptation interventions between 0.5 and 10 years (Mdn = 4.5 years; Q₁ = 2.5 years; Q₃ = 6.75 years). Three of them worked at the operational level with detailed planning and stormwater modelling, and four worked at the strategic level with project management or urban development. One worked for a rural municipality, two for a smaller town, three for a larger town and two worked for a city. They worked in the south, middle or north of Sweden. Thus, all participants had direct responsibilities related to heavy rainfall in their municipalities, representing a range of local contexts, roles and levels of experience. In addition, essential for a phenomenological approach, they were motivated in offering rich and detailed descriptions of their experiences.

To align with Karlsson’s (1995) descriptive phenomenological approach, the interviews were designed to elicit the participants’ experiences with decision-making in adapting to heavy rainfall. The open-ended questions invited them to describe and reflect on specific situations and how they understood and experienced them. Rather than focusing exclusively on actions or outcomes, the questions allowed participants to elaborate on their perceptions and experienced uncertainties, judgments and considerations. Follow-up questions such as “Can you describe this situation in more detail?” sought to capture the subjective meaning and psychological structure of the decision-making experience.

The interviews were conducted digitally, and all participants received written and verbal information about the purpose of the study, research ethics, interview structure and audio-recording. After consenting to participate, the participant was asked to describe what the municipality looks like from a heavy rainfall perspective. After this, the participant was asked to describe the work with rainfall adaptation. The participant was in general encouraged to reflect and elaborate, and when pausing in an answer, was specifically asked to elaborate or expand on the topic. For example, questions such as “What made judging this situation so difficult or uncertain?” or “What went through your mind at that point?” were asked to elaborate on how to overcome challenges and what the pitfalls might be when assessing a localization that needs to be adapted to heavy rainfall. When the participant shared no new views or experiences, the interview was concluded. The interviews lasted between 40 and 65 min.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim. During transcription, the material was pseudonymized so that names and personal data could not be deduced. Data processing was then carried out systematically in accordance with Karlsson’s (1995) five steps for descriptive phenomenological research. In step one, the goal was to gain a good understanding of the data by reading through the transcripts several times. When reading, a theoretical frame of reference is not used to understand how the participants experience the decision-making process in adaptation, but their stories are read with a focus on the phenomenon of decision-making itself. In descriptive phenomenology, Karlsson (1995) distinguishes between scientific theory and (psychological) pre-understanding because the former is based on scientific construction and the latter involves grasping the phenomenon psychologically as experienced in the subject and the meaning of it. After gaining a good understanding of the data, the next step began by color-marking text passages that seemed significant and interesting. These passages were chosen because they showed a “shift in meaning” (Karlsson, 1995, p. 97). In step three, the actual analysis was made by a phenomenological psychological reduction through interpretation in which particular facts are moved to their psychological meaning. This means that the analysis needs “to trace out the implicit and explicit psychological meaning that the subject has lived through and described in the protocols” (Karlsson, 1995, p. 97). In the fourth step, the decision-making phenomena were structurally summarized, based on the characteristics of the meaning units, by presenting how decision-making is lived and what the phenomenon is to a “situated structure” (Karlsson, 1995, p. 106). Finally, the themes were compiled based on the different structures of the eight transcripts (i.e. one transcript for each participant) into a “general structure” that emerged in step four.

The study was conducted in accordance with recommendations for good research practice by the Swedish Ethical Research Authority (Görman, 2021). The participant was informed about the purpose of the study, the data processing and contact details in case of questions. The participant made an informed consent to participate. In accordance with the requirement that all people have the right to privacy (Görman, 2021), information that could reveal the identity of the participant was pseudonymized or decoded in the report. The participant was assured that information provided would only be used for scientific purposes.

Three themes emerged that were (1) complex decision-making, (2) reference points as inner compass and (3) overarching factors.

The decisions made in heavy rainfall adaptation were experienced as resource-demanding, deeply engaging and meaningful. This can be described by the following four subthemes.

A core aspect of the experience was the tension felt when deciding about a future that is unknown because “the reality may [be] something else.” This is because many parameters of the future are experienced as unpredictable, and therefore feel uncertain. For example, there is a delay in feedback on whether the interventions will be effective or for how long they will be effective. Changes in climate and associated rain amounts and patterns, as well as how urbanization and way of living will evolve in the future, are part of this experienced uncertainty creating tension in the decision-making. Even though the future is unknown, there is a clear apprehension of the future as “safe” and how it should be achieved. This idea of a “safe future” serves as a mental anchor that can be understood as a way of reducing the tension caused by uncertainty. The image of safety was often imagined spatially in such a way that the properties of water can “be structuring” or by letting “mother nature […] do the job as far as possible.” The way in which the participants balance the experience of uncertainty by using anchors and metaphors of a safe future is at the core of their decision-making processes.

They experienced that every decision is tied to a specific location, meaning it must be adapted to the local site. “Different interventions in different places” refers not only to technical variation but also to situational immersion in which one adjusts to the interplay of environmental and social forces. To adapt to the local situation, there are many things to consider in the decision-making process. For example, topographical and geotechnical characteristics of the site, the volume of sediment the water can carry, the extent of urban development, the necessity of societal essential infrastructure, the requirement for the continued usability of roads by emergency services, and whether local rail and road communications are part of Sweden’s essential transport network system. That is, the specifics included in the decision process were experienced as cognitively stressful, explained by their expressed requirement to determine how well an area can cope with heavy rainfall and potentially project the moment when the future becomes safe. In this way, situated adaptation is not only a practical principle but also a felt responsibility rooted in place-based judgement and awareness of what is at stake.

A central feature of the experiences is the sense of what is possible – a lived orientation toward the realizable. This is not just a technical consideration but a felt constraint that imbues their judgments with weight and direction. The envisioned “safe city” is imagined and felt through the physical and infrastructural limits of each location. The participants constantly weigh what can be done, not what should be done. This judgment process unfolds through the two contrasting approaches “engineering with nature” and “engineering against nature.” The “engineering with nature” approach is based on blue-green structures where water flows spatially in harmony with the city. This approach appears to convey the participants’ definition of their “safe city” as open, inventive and forward-looking. In contrast, the approach of “engineering against nature” involves the use of gray structures (such as pumps, ponds, cassettes and pipes to prevent water from following its natural path). This approach is perceived as more forced and an attempt to contain rather than to accommodate. In densely built areas, this felt opposition of approaches is not freely chosen but is experienced as requiring necessary compromise. Importantly, “while we are working here, we can […] create a better stormwater management in this area.” This is a window of opportunity as a temporal opening of the possibility to transform into their envisioned “safe city.” In summary, the realizability of interventions is about the situated sense of timing, alignment and ethical responsibility.

The participants’ experience of making decisions is based on continuous integrative learning to understand the situation at hand. In other words, they describe the creation of understanding through situated responsiveness – a recursive loop of trying, failing and adjusting to attune to the shifting landscape of rainfall adaptation. For instance, various information and uncertainties are constantly assessed to understand the totality of a situation and to produce a realizable intervention. Flood modeling is used to determine the correct height for buildings, roads and public spaces so that water can run off without causing damage. “We put in a new height, it does not work, okay, we have to change here [. …] . We have to change [ the height ] again.” One uncertainty they try to understand is that the estimated amount of water generated by heavy rainfall can be influenced by erroneous assumptions and impacting the intervention efficacy negatively. “Calculations are not truths but rather estimates.” This reflects an epistemic humility in their work in that certainty is more or less out of reach, but clarity can emerge through continued interaction with the environment. There is also uncertainty about how to understand the term “climate-adapted city” because different levels of precision are required at different planning levels. However, an increased understanding of the “climate-adapted city” emerges when interventions are implemented, shifting the view of stormwater management from a problem to an opportunity to improve the local urban environment. Therefore, understanding becomes not a prerequisite for action but rather an outcome – a cumulative insight shaped through trial and error, time and attentiveness. Furthermore, this flexibility manifests itself in the ability to respond to the complexity experienced in real time and to integrate new information and circumstances. However, this continuous process of becoming is experienced as fragile, narrowing the scope of what can be integrated. “Lack of time can sometimes lead to a lack of understanding. That you do not get the opportunity to really understand all the pieces that solve the puzzle, […] because if it is forced, it is not good.”

Four different points of reference have emerged that seem to help weigh the various dimensions or factors to make a decision that enables “the right solution to be put in the right place.” These reference points are experienced as an inner compass towards a safe city, enabling the participants to navigate the complexities of each situation. The first reference point used is that an intervention must move water to the next recipient as quickly as possible without causing damage. This always takes precedence over all other functions and services. In some cases, it means sacrificing other functions or services, such as biodiversity and social aspects. The second point of reference used is that the cost of an intervention must be commensurate with its effectiveness in managing water. Preferably, it will be effective in the near future but with the belief that adaptation is something “we will have to work on endlessly.” A third reference point is to pragmatically weigh one risk against another. For example, the risk of pluvial flooding is weighed against the risk of heavy rainfall to prioritize in a manner that is advantageous for overall resilient measures and outcomes. The fourth point of reference is that the latest scientific advice can be applied in areas where new development is planned, while in existing developments there are fewer degrees of freedom because “unfortunately not everything can be built away.” To summarize, the meaning of their expressed structuring of the field of possible actions, highlighting certain affordances and closing off others, can be thought of as navigating the complexities by using reference points to hold course.

Experienced organizational structures and broader settings are felt forces that frame, support and sometimes limit what can be decided and done. These overarching forces or factors create a landscape of possibilities that is never static. It is full of power gradients, ambiguities and tensions that participants must continuously navigate and incorporate into their decision-making process.

A number of organizational factors are experienced as significant because they can create either a sense of stability or vulnerability. One factor is collaboration. It is experienced as stabilizing when people are “having a systemic view, trying to work broadly” in different group constellations. This provides the opportunity “to lift things up”, to “clarify” what should be done by whom and how. It is also experienced as stabilizing when people without high-level official responsibility contribute because of their knowledge and experience. However, collaboration is also fragile because the potential disappearance of these informal leaders creates a sense of vulnerability that the participants cannot control but deeply feel. Organizational clarity through clear allocation of responsibilities for stormwater management or plans is psychologically stabilizing, as it grounds the participants’ actions and distributes responsibility in a way that make decision-making feel possible. “We have created a responsibility matrix to make things clearer and to be able to see what you are responsible for as a property owner or if you have a municipal or private road and for what and when and how.” However, a lack of clarity, such as an absence of a “clear division of responsibilities for [natural] watercourses”, seems to make the participants feel uneasy and fearful of heavy rainfall. “We need to think more in terms of catchment areas and less in terms of man-made boundaries” (i.e. organizational and administrative boundaries) to increase resilience.

The overall setting is experienced as a complex interplay of external expertise, economic pressures and political norms. Furthermore, the participants express they are exposed to discomforting value conflicts: the clash between cost efficiency and ecological values and between long-term sustainability and short-term profit. Soft values, such as biodiversity, human well-being and the protective role of a forest, are felt as real yet difficult to defend in systems that demand quantifiable economical values. This gap between what is really valued and what is economically calculable is experienced as a persistent emotional and communicative strain. “All these soft values are so hard to put a price on. It’s possible to put a money figure on these hard technical values but not on well-being and all this other biodiversity and stuff [. …] then it can be difficult to communicate and present it as a clear argument” for adaptation and protection. Finally, floods, media attention and geopolitical changes (e.g. NATO membership) are not only experienced as disruptions but also as windows of opportunity. These are periods when the social and political atmosphere temporarily aligns with the participants’ aim to create a safe future. These moments are felt as opportunities to advance, “a big advantage [in prioritizing interventions] so we’re trying to move forward while [heavy rain adaptation] is still a hot topic.” The considered temporary nature of these moments creates an underlying pressure to act while the momentum lasts.

The aim was to investigate how the decision-making in heavy rainfall adaptation appears to municipal civil servants. Through a phenomenological lens, the results revealed the themes (1) complex decision-making, (2) reference points as inner compass and (3) overarching factors that illuminate the managing of heavy rainfall at the sharp end. These themes show that decision-making is not merely the selection of preset appropriate interventions but a complex, dynamic and situated process shaped by responsibility, situated responsiveness and temporal orientation toward a “safe city.”

The theme Complex decision-making reflects the participants’ experience of decisions as embedded in a temporal and spatial continuum of constraints, aspirations and uncertainties. It underlines the perceived complexity of adapting to heavy rainfall. Complexity is often equated with the number of factors or dimensions considered in the decision process (e.g. Brehmer, 1973; Wood, 1986), and this is also the case in the intervening of heavy rainfall in which the participants report time frame, feedback delay, urban development changes, changes in weather patterns, localization characteristics and intervention efficacy. Thus, their experiences suggest that their decision-making is dynamic (Brehmer, 1996). They do not simply choose between different alternatives of how to adapt a site but make a series of interdependent decisions to achieve the goal of a safe future through feasible and situation-specific interventions. In other words, the decision-making is an evolving and dynamic process rather than a more or less static choice of preset alternatives. The task of adapting an area may change due to external, independent influences as well as by their own previously decided actions. To stay on course and achieve the goal of a safe future, they correct and adapt their course of action through their continuous aim to understand and manage the changing situation. The time delay of the effects of an intervention is perceived as a serious challenge because it can make it difficult to recognize when corrective action needs to be taken. This type of delay, referred to as dead time, cannot be dealt with in the usual way (i.e. efficient decision-making procedures, effective communication, development of alternative plans) and the only way to deal with it is “to adapt the response so that it is adequate when it takes effect” (Brehmer and Thunholm, 2011, p. 7). (In addition, achieving this within a longer time frame seems fundamentally difficult in that some of the participants’ interventions are aimed to take effect in a distant future when the intensity of precipitation will be difficult to predict due to the unknown extent of global warming.)

It can be considered that decision-making complexity can be resolved with reduced uncertainty by more information (Gigerenzer and Brighton, 2009). The reduction of uncertainty, however, is not about how much information is available but rather how the information of the situation is interpreted and understood (Klein, 2008; Lipshitz et al., 2001). The subtheme Understanding as emergent practice of the theme Complex decision-making indicates that understanding is not experienced as a fixed prerequisite for action but as emerging through action. This suggests the use of sensemaking, whereby participants develop an understanding of a situation and potential solutions by continually integrating new information with existing knowledge. According to Weick et al. (2005), sensemaking involves interpreting an ambiguous and uncertain reality based on existing knowledge and experience to enable informed action in a more ordered reality. Furthermore, the quality of the sensemaking and decisions made can be considered more or less dependent on the level of experience and skill (Sukhov et al., 2021). The participants indicated they are subject to time constraints, and some of them claimed they make poorer decisions as result. Time constraints may increase the likelihood of information being intuitively processed (Gigerenzer and Brighton, 2009), as opposed to analytically, and especially with less experience, it may lead to poorer decisions (Klein, 2008; Lipshitz et al., 2001). Notably, the median of the participants’ working experience of rainfall adaptation was 4.5 years (Q₁ = 2.5 years; Q₃ = 6.75 years). Thus, at least for some of them, the time constraints in combination with little experience perhaps led to poor decision quality. It may be that they were prone to make biased decisions (Kahneman and Klein, 2009) since their reports suggest both planning fallacy and availability bias (Nuijten et al., 2020; Zhang and Cueto, 2017). Finally, the participants are more likely to realize interventions engineered in line with nature than interventions engineered against nature (Realizability as a lived horizon). One possible explanation is that interventions against nature have been shown to be more vulnerable to heavy rainfall than those engineered with nature (Arnbjerg-Nielsen et al., 2013; Wong and Brown, 2009). Another explanation could be that the way the information is framed (Tversky and Kahneman, 1986) influences them. For example, the two residential districts Augustenborg (Malmö, Sweden) and Tåsinge Plads (Copenhagen, Denmark) (e.g. Negrello, 2023) were mentioned by several participants as positive role models. That is, engineering “with” or “against” nature is not just a design choice. It is a symbolic and emotional stance towards the urban future. However, the fact that nature-based interventions are framed as a gain, while grey interventions (i.e. concrete pipelines, drainages and sewerage networks) are framed as a loss, could lead to biased perception and subsequent erroneous decisions. Another explanation could be that the majority of the participants’ projects are in undeveloped areas. Since nature-based solutions are recommended for these areas (the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, 2010), this means that they are simply following recommendations. Furthermore, there are several positive synergies when implementing nature-based solutions, such as increased biodiversity and economic growth, which, together with improved climate adaptation, contribute to sustainable development (Nesshöver et al., 2017). However, although the participants prefer nature-based solutions, they seem to mainly apply solutions that are adapted to the situation. Their decisions, therefore, can be characterized as Responsible situated adaptation because they are not detached or purely technical. Rather, it is rooted in place-based awareness and accountability, which is experienced as meaningful. Furthermore, interventions tailored to specific locations and situational challenges are crucial for successful interventions (Nesshöver et al., 2017; Nickel et al., 2014). Examples include those by Charlesworth et al. (2013), de Graaf and van der Brugge (2010), Nickel et al. (2014) and Perales-Momparler et al. (2017).

The participants’ efforts to understand the decision situation seem related to their use of decision strategies (theme 2: Reference points as inner compass) because these strategies help them decide which intervention to plan, what outcome to expect and whether the solution is appropriate and effective for the site. This is probably because this inner compass enables them to prioritize by means of “situated pragmatism” − a blend of ecological rationality (Gigerenzer and Brighton, 2009) and practical ethics. This allows the participants to reduce the paralyzing effects of uncertainty and avoid disorientation, helping them to move forward. According to Klein (1997) and Wood et al. (1990), the ability to develop appropriate strategies in complex decision environments is critical to successful performance. Research shows that experienced decision-makers, as opposed to inexperienced ones, use strategies that lead to more informed decisions (Klein, 2008; Lipshitz et al., 2001). Based on how the participants handle their task, it can be inferred that self-efficacy and intention are present when they work with heavy rainfall adaptation. However, these mental processes did not emerge explicitly (i.e. they did not express, for example, “I am able to do” and “I want to do”). Karlsson (1988) also did not find these processes explicitly in his phenomenological analysis of decision-making but contended that intention and self-efficacy are crucial in decision-making because without them a decision will not be made. Wood et al. (1990) argue that self-efficacy in complex decision environments leads to better information processing and efficient decision rules, which in turn leads to better decisions.

Finally, the theme of Overarching factors highlights how organizational and contextual conditions are experienced as structuring forces that inflect decision-making. These forces can be described as perceived both affectively and intellectually. This theme is largely consistent with the findings of Thorne et al. (2018) and Wihlborg et al. (2019) in terms of drivers and barriers. Thorne et al. (2018) discuss the reduction of engineering uncertainty as the most important means of making the right decisions, and Wihlborg et al. (2019) focus mainly on overcoming the socio-technical challenges. In contrast, the theme of Overarching factors of the present study highlights some psychological aspects of the subthemes of Organization and Setting, which could increase the likelihood of better decisions in high-demand environments. The participants mentioned that they sometimes feel they do not have sufficient knowledge or experience, which could be interpreted as the reason why they choose an informal leader in cases where they feel they do not have a formal leader with knowledge and experience (Organization) or bring in external expertise (Setting). Engaged and goal-oriented leadership can be a critical resource that creates the conditions for informed decision-making, especially in complex work environments that place high demands on employee performance (Schaufeli, 2015; Wood et al., 1990). The participants’ understanding of the disappearance of key individuals as a threat may therefore be justified. To summarize, Organization is not just a managerial feature because it eases the burden of psychological uncertainty. Without constructive leadership and responsibility matrices, for example, the task of adaptation becomes heavier, more fragmented and harder to justify.

Similarly, Setting emerges as a multifaceted force. Economic constraints, consultant recommendations, political will and societal norms all interact in ways that cannot easily be separated. These are not only external inputs to a decision model but also felt pressures that influence judgment. For example, this subtheme reveals exposure to values that make the participants feel pressured to choose solutions that are consistent with the social norms. As biases also operate in the social context (norms and rules create shared beliefs about how things should be handled), the participants are likely to be subject to confirmation bias (Zhang and Cueto, 2017). A risk associated with external expertise is that the vision and goals of external expertise may not necessarily align with the vision and goals of the municipality and may negatively influence the strategies used to achieve those goals (Zaccaro and Banks, 2001). Consequently, it may be important for municipalities to clarify to external expertise their vision and goals for adaptation to heavy precipitation to create the right conditions for reducing the vulnerability of essential societal functions and infrastructure. Interestingly, disruptions are also experienced as opportunities. In phenomenological terms, these events can be understood as intentional shifts that reconfigure the horizon of possibility. When media attention or political momentum aligns with adaptation goals, the participants describe a surge of clarity and urgency, a kind of collective intentionality that makes decisive action possible. However, this alignment is temporary and precarious, not a new normal.

From a methodological view, the use of descriptive phenomenological analysis provided access to the participants’ lived meaning-making processes. In other words, the civil servants revealed how they experience and make sense of their task world. A potential limitation of the present study is the sampling procedure, which may have resulted in a biased sample. The civil servants who volunteered to participate probably had a particularly positive interest in adapting to heavy rainfall. Nevertheless, the data shows good qualitative variation in relation to the research question (Yardley, 2015), and the open-ended interview approach allowed respondents to provide “naive, spontaneous accounts of their experiences” (Karlsson, 1995, p. 94). This suggests the selection process led to respondents who were willing and able to share (Smith and Osborn, 2015). Additionally, the themes align relatively well with previous research on decision-making (e.g. Karlsson, 1988; Klein, 2008; Lipshitz et al., 2001; Sukhov et al., 2021; Wood et al., 1990) and climate change adaptation (e.g. Nickel et al., 2014; Thorne et al., 2018). Another potential limitation may be that the participants worked at different levels of rainfall adaptation and varied in experience (see above), which may have led to different ways of evaluating situations. For instance, Klein (2008) and Lipshitz et al. (2001) demonstrate that experience significantly impacts the quality of decision-making. However, the analysis revealed few critical differences between the participants’ approaches to their complex environment. In addition, the different degrees of experiences can be considered a strength in that various perspectives can be covered.

As partly mentioned above, the participants’ perceived decision-making processes suggest that self-efficacy impacts how people cope with complex decision-making environments. According to Wood et al. (1990), in complex environments people who are confident in their abilities focus their attention and effort on solving the task. In contrast, people who are less confident focus more on the consequences of failure than on solving the task. Thus, self-efficacy influences judgment processes in complex, dynamic environments by affecting how information is processed, interpreted and revised to find solutions (Wood et al., 1990). Future research could benefit from using quantitative research methods to examine the interplay between self-efficacy, intention, and sensemaking and the use of decision rules.

This study shows that the municipal civil servants experience the decision-making in heavy rainfall adaptation as a lived, situated and dynamic process. The decisions unfold as intentional acts embedded in social, temporal and environmental contexts, as opposed to isolated and static moments of choice. This emerges from the interplay between felt uncertainty and the structuring of an imagined “safe city” emotionally invested in. In other words, the safe future city is their stabilizing horizon in an unpredictable world. Their use of situated adaptation speaks to an ongoing negotiation between feasibility and desirability, and between technical achievability and ethical justifiability. These are sense-making judgments shaped by experience, not technical and economical calculations alone. However, several barriers can hinder the quality of the decision-making. Limited experience with heavy rainfall adaptation, norms and values that do not support climate action, unclear adaptation goals and gaps in organizational leadership are significant challenges. Addressing these challenges is critical for decision-making in high-demand environments.

To conclude, this study emphasizes dynamic judgment and decision-making in context for efficient and effective climate adaptation. Recognizing this may encourage improved support of the human agents at the sharp end in their tailoring of plans into appropriate actions. Among other things, this includes investing in training to manage the uncertainty and complexity to promote resilient adaptation to heavy rainfall.

Jenny Friedl: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – Original Draft/Review and Editing. Lars Eriksson: Formal analysis, Writing – Review and Editing, Supervision.

A version of the study was presented in a report in Swedish at Karlstad University, Sweden.