Advancing extreme event attribution science and communication to meet decision-maker needs in Australia and New Zealand Open Access

Anthropogenic (human) activities are having an unequivocal influence on the global climate system, impacting both human and natural systems (Eyring et al., 2021; Seneviratne et al., 2021). These climate changes are having a statistically observable influence on extreme heat and rainfall events, which are in turn leading to more impactful events (Ara Begum et al., 2022; Seneviratne et al., 2021). The losses and damages (i.e. impacts beyond adaptation limits) being experienced include increased heat-driven mortality, regional variations in flood magnitude and frequency, economic losses, compounding and cascading disasters and increasing community impacts (Stott et al., 2016; Ara Begum et al., 2022; Jackson, 2023).

Decision-makers are under increasing pressure to implement effective and equitable adaptation strategies to reduce risks and manage loss and damages from climate change (Stott et al., 2016; Ara Begum et al., 2022). One type of scientific tool emerging in the climate field to assist decision-makers is extreme event attribution (EEA). As used here, EEA quantifies the influence of anthropogenic climate change on the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (Seneviratne et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2012; Sippel et al., 2015). Successful applications of EEA use a variety of methods, including statistical models to compare the likelihood, severity and progression of an extreme event under observed conditions against conditions excluding the influence of anthropogenic climate change (Philip et al., 2019; Young et al., 2019). While uncertainties remain because of dynamic complex climate forcings (Bindoff et al., 2014), this paper focuses specifically on attributing events to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Decision-makers may use EEA to support litigation, inform loss and damage policies, guide insurance and adaptation planning, and raise awareness of climate change impacts. EEA also has the potential to advance climate justice, aiding lawyers, advocates and Indigenous and local communities (Stott and Walton, 2013; James et al., 2014; Sippel et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2024; Scown et al., 2025).

A related scientific tool emerging is impact attribution, which extends EEA by linking specific impacts within non-climate systems to climate change (Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al., 2022, p. 2). Initiatives such as the World Weather Attribution are increasingly attempting to separate climate drivers from social vulnerabilities to better quantify climate-related impacts (e.g. Stone, Rosier and Frame, 2021; Clarke et al., 2022).

To increase the uptake and use of EEA, there is value in co-producing research and climate service delivery with users, such as decision-makers, whose needs may not be met by independent science production (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; Meadow et al., 2015; Brondizio et al., 2016; Vincent et al., 2018; Findlater et al., 2021). This co-design process can be referred to as useable or applied science, science that is produced to contribute directly to the solution of a problem or policy (Dilling and Lemos, 2011).

Over the past decade, the usability of climate science has been explored across contexts, scales and locations, revealing that iterative co-design and strategic interactions between scientific knowledge producers and decision-makers encourage usability (Miles et al., 2006; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; Lemos et al., 2012; Kirchhoff et al., 2013; Conway et al., 2019). For attribution and climate communication, scientists are responsible for producing EEA statements, whereas science communicators aim to effectively translate the science into actionable insights.

In a global analysis of 612 peer-reviewed studies (2004–2024), 74% of the extreme weather events and trends examined were either more likely or more severe as a result of anthropogenic climate change (McSweeney and Tandon, 2024). In Australia, all 11 extreme heat studies reviewed were categorised as “more severe or more likely to occur” because of anthropogenic climate change (Lewis et al., 2014; Perkins and Gibson, 2015; Hope et al., 2016). Extreme rainfall event studies in Australia, however, less commonly attributed the events to anthropogenic drivers (Black et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2018; King, 2018; Tozer et al., 2020). All five rainfall studies concluded “no discernible human influence” largely because of high natural variability (McSweeney and Tandon, 2024). For example, the record-breaking rainfalls of 2010–2012 and 2016 were primarily attributed to La Niña or negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) conditions (King et al., 2013; Lewis and Karoly, 2015; Hope et al., 2018).

In New Zealand (NZ), climate risks tend to be related to extreme rainfall of up to two days duration or to seasonal drought. Thus, attributing the anthropogenic influence on extreme, short-duration rainfall has dominated attribution research in NZ. Two studies of recent extreme rainfall events attributed a 10–15% increase in the amount of rainfall falling per hour (Rosier et al., 2024; Stone et al., 2024a, 2024b). Stone et al. (2024a, 2024b) summarised several studies, finding that up to 5% of the changes in longer duration rainfall amounts (1–2 days) are attributable to anthropogenic warming in NZ. However, research on heat and drought attribution in NZ remains limited (Harrington et al., 2022; Frame et al., 2020). Globally, initiatives such as the World Weather Attribution initiative and the Copernicus Climate Change Service are advancing the momentum for EEA climate services (Copernicus Climate Change Service, 2024; World Weather Attribution, 2024).

In Australia, climate scientists and services are co-developing a suite of event attribution approaches. This suite will provide rapid attribution and contextualisation results to sit alongside the climate monitoring and forecasts of the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia’s National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (Hope et al., 2024). Multiple methods are being developed to provide nuance to the communication of attribution and to improve the methodologies. Attribution to anthropogenic climate change is a key component of the methods in development, but details about the influences from the large-scale modes of variability such as El Nino and the weather state can also be included (e.g. Hope et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2014; Rauniyar and Power, 2020). The method and communication development have been informed by a series of workshops (Grose et al., 2024), and this study will further inform the direction of development (e.g. Bourbon and Machin, 2024).

In NZ, there have been two key EEA developments: the extreme weather event real-time attribution machine ^[1], an operational attribution system based on the national weather forecast, and Whakahura, a research program that seeks to improve understanding of extreme weather in NZ and to develop new extreme weather forecasting tools ^[2] (Tradowsky et al., 2022, 2023). Communication of EEA is limited, and have only been included after events through three approaches: regular scheduled discussions with key national organisations; occasional engagement with Māori groups; and media responses, particularly after Cyclone Gabrielle 2 (Harrington et al. 2023).

There are both opportunities and challenges to using EEA science to inform climate risk decisions; however, global research on its practical application for decision-makers is limited (e.g. Hulme et al., 2012; Stott et al., 2016; Jackson et al., 2023; King et al., 2023). In the German Baltic Sea, decision-makers found EEA valuable for informing and motivating mitigation decisions (Schwab et al., 2017). Young et al. (2019) suggest that by indicating future event likelihood, EEA science can encourage the implementation of adaptation strategies and resource allocation to vulnerable assets and communities. Sippel et al. (2015) highlighted that adaptation decision-makers used EEA results in their daily work, following the South-Eastern European heatwave in 2012.

Most of these EEA studies investigate attribution from the scientific angle, focusing on the production of attribution for users, rather than on understanding user needs through co-designed engagement. Where user perspectives were considered, findings revealed that EEA communication should use relatable language and be centred around vulnerability. Additionally, particular care is needed when communicating lower confidence or complex events such as tropical cyclones (Ettinger et al., 2021; Hope, 2023) and Grose et al. (2024).

In Australia and NZ, research on the use and communication of EEA is limited. A recent study by Bourbon and Machin (2024) offers the only known insights into what decision-makers might use EEA for and how it can be more effectively communicated. The study suggests that in the Australian decision-making landscape, EEA is only currently being used for education and climate awareness, however, highlights that if communicated effectively, there may be a desire to use EEA for mitigation and adaptation decisions. Bourbon and Machin (2024) identify five areas of improvement to enhance EEA delivery: (1) language; (2) methodology; (3) impact attribution; (4) action-oriented communication; and (5) scientific comprehension. This study uses these recent insights and focuses on Australia and NZ, where there is a lack of EEA communication studies. Both countries similarly complete EEA studies opportunistically, without a comprehensive or systematic process (Grose et al., 2024).

We leverage the findings of Bourbon and Machin (2024) to investigate the capabilities, enablers and barriers of scientists and communicators as knowledge producers and translators. Both scientist and communicator capabilities are explored because of their differing and complementary roles in EEA development and communication.

Advancing EEA research and communication will contribute to the attribution and science communication scholarship and inform attribution services globally and climate services more broadly. No known research in Australia or NZ has sought to understand whether scientists and communicators are capable of meeting decision-maker needs for EEA communication. Therefore, our research provides a critical addition to the global scholarship on decision-making and EEA science communication.

This study is part of a broader research program on EEA co-design, building on Bourbon and Machin (2024) findings that identify decision-maker needs EEA communication (Figure 1).

We used a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Through a survey of short answer and Likert scale questions, we measured the perceived capabilities of scientists and communicators to meet the five decision-maker needs (Table 1). This co-design approach allowed scientists and communicators to understand decision-making needs and to identify their own capabilities to meet the needs.

Four out of the five decision-maker needs defined by Bourbon and Machin (2024) were used in this study (Table 1); however, in our research we used the term “impact attribution” rather than “impact linkages” for the decision-maker need, as it was presented to scientists and communicators with a focus on the attribution element, rather than the link to decision-maker needs. The current process of EEA science progression from development to use follows the last mile approach commonly used in disaster risk reduction, which focuses on the communication of the service to the users (Loster, 2012; Taubenböck et al., 2013; Thomson, 2019). In contrast, our research, was informed by the first-mile approach to identify the capabilities of scientists and communicators to meet previously identified decision-maker needs. This bottom-up approach is considered best practice when designing a new service, emphasising the importance of starting with decision-maker needs and working backwards to understand what will best serve those needs (Dilling and Lemos, 2011; Hoffmann et al., 2023).

For the scope of this study, scientists are defined as climate scientists, attribution scientists, researchers and academics from other scientific fields involved in the generation and dissemination of climate risk information. Communicators are defined as knowledge brokers, advisors, as well as weather and climate services staff and other communication-based roles responsible for the translation and communication of climate risk information to decision-makers. When the term participant is used, it refers to scientists and communicators results combined. Although scholars have identified a range of users of climate services, we focused on government decision-makers, defined in this study as members of governments in Australia and NZ responsible for making climate risk decisions (Scown et al., 2025 and Bourbon and Machin, 2024).

A total of 37 participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling, drawing on the research team’s networks to reach individuals with EEA knowledge and referrals to industry contacts (Campbell et al., 2020; Robinson, 2014). The sample size of 37 was determined by the number of participants who were able to attend and consented to participate in the research on the day of the workshop. Participants were from a mixture of government bodies and academic institutions based in Australia (92%) and NZ (8%). The international collaboration demonstrates an important joint Australia–NZ effort (e.g. Frame et al., 2020; Tradowsky et al., 2022). Most participants (78%) worked or were involved in the climate or attribution space, with many (55%) involved for more than 10 years. 78% of participants work covered extreme heat and 86% extreme rainfall events. The sample included participants from Australian government agencies (73%), NZ government agencies (8%) and Australian universities (30%).

Survey completion rates were high; however, they were lower for questions on impact attribution and scientific comprehension (89%) compared to language (100%). All participants self-identified as a scientist (59%), communicator (19%) or both (22%). The overlap between the distinct roles highlights how skills in the knowledge transfer process are not always siloed and are often diverse (Hoffmann et al., 2023).

Our research was granted ethics approval by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 37524). Participants were able to withdraw from the research at any time and without consequence.

The overall research design included comprehensive research, purposive recruitment, triangulation between qualitative and quantitative data and mixed-methods data analysis (Figure 1). The design used the results of Bourbon and Machin (2024) to inform the data collection, resulting in a purposefully co-designed process to understand how scientists and communicators, as knowledge producers and translators, could best meet the identified decision-maker needs for EEA communication.

During a two-day workshop in Melbourne, Australia, scientists and communicators from Australia and NZ were presented with the five key decision-maker needs for improved EEA communication. Paper-based qualitative and quantitative surveys were then used as primary data collection. Participants were asked four short answer questions per need, which asked them to detail the barriers, enablers and pathways forward for EEA communication. Participants were then asked to rate their agreement with statements about the barriers, enablers and pathways forward, e.g. “These enablers facilitate my ability to meet the need for decision-makers”, on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree (see Supplementary Table). The final survey question asked participants “How many years are you away from meeting [the need]” for each decision-maker need. Participants chose from four options: “0–1 years”; “2–5 years”; “6–9 years” and “10+ years”.

The short answer survey responses were analysed using inductive and thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), a method commonly applied in studies exploring EEA use in decision-making (e.g. Sippel et al., 2015; Young et al., 2019). This analysis helps to identify, organise, describe and analyse repeating ideas, opinions and representations in qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017).

A proof of concept was conducted between our researchers, who independently identified emergent themes for barriers, enablers and pathways forward prior to analysis. These themes were then categorised using Microsoft Excel, allowing for similarities and differences to be drawn between scientist and communicator responses for decision-maker needs. The number of scientists and communicators identified under each theme was then quantified, and the findings expressed as the percentage of respective scientists and communicators, excluding those who did not respond to the surveys. Participants who identified as both a scientist and communicator were counted in each category. For Current Ability results, for scientists and communicators to be described as “currently meeting the need”, the majority of results needed to be within the agree range, rather than the disagree range. This excluded neutral responses. For questions participants did not answer, the percentage was calculated using a total of questions answered.

For the quantitative analysis, Excel was used to analyse and visualise responses to four Likert scale questions and one multiple-choice question.

The first results section outlines the current ability of scientists and communicators to meet decision-makers EEA needs. The remaining three sections report themes for barriers, enablers and pathways forward for scientists and communicators to meet decision-maker needs, as well as the extent of agreement that the barriers, enablers and pathways forward would hinder or help their communication.

More than half of participants reported that their organisations were currently meeting language (53%) and scientific comprehension (58%) needs; however, less than a third were meeting impact attribution (12%) and action-oriented communication (26%) needs. For the methodology need, while more participants agreed (44%) than disagreed (36%) that they could currently meet the need, communicators were more likely to disagree (47%) than scientists (31%). Scientists generally shared similar views to communicators in most needs categories; however, for scientific comprehension, more communicators (77%) than scientists (54%) agreed that they could currently meet the decision-maker needs for EEA communication.

Five key themes were identified in participant responses to the question “What barriers hinder your organisation’s ability to meet the [need]?”: stakeholder challenges, skills and resources, standardisation, responsibility and scientific limitations (Table 2).

Stakeholder challenges, as defined in Table 2, was the most frequently identified barrier to meeting language and methodology decision-making needs (Figure 2). Stakeholder challenges was also frequently referred to as a barrier for action-oriented communication. Scientists and communicators discussed stakeholder challenges across all needs, with both participant groups having difficulties understanding and catering attribution communication to diverse decision-making needs. Participants suggested that the lack of understanding of and ability to tailor communication to decision-maker needs was caused by a lack of interdisciplinary communication and collaboration.

Scientific limitations (Table 2) was the most frequently mentioned barrier to meeting impact attribution. Both scientists and communicators emphasised the novelty and uncertainties of incorporating impact attribution into EEA communication because of the:

Responsibility (Table 2) was the most frequently identified as a barrier to meeting the need of action-oriented communication. For this need, both scientists and communicators outlined that providing action-based recommendations for decision-makers was outside the scope of their organisation or role (i.e. their responsibility), particularly for those involved in academia:

Skills and resources (Table 2) was the most common barrier discussed to meet the scientific comprehension need. Participants noted the lack of communications expertise and practice with translating EEA information to decision-makers and the lack of time available to establish scientist–decision-maker relationships for improving EEA communication.

Compared to the aforementioned themes, standardisation (Table 2) was not as frequently identified. Communicators identified it most frequently as a barrier for language and methodology needs.

Overall, scientists and communicators agreed that the barriers they identified hindered their organisation’s ability to meet decision-maker needs, with high agreement across the needs: language (76%), methodology (77%), impact attribution (94%), action-oriented communication (81%) and scientific comprehension (71%).

Five key themes were apparent in survey responses where participants were asked “What enablers facilitate your organisation’s ability to meet [insert need]?” (Table 3).

The most frequently identified themes were similar for both scientist and communicator responses, with communication, collaboration, standardisation, decision-maker insights and skills and resources expressed as important enablers (Figure 3).

Communication (Table 3) was the most frequently identified enabler for meeting language and scientific comprehension needs. Many scientists and communicators identified communications skills and specialists as key facilitators in meeting this need. One participant noted that:

Collaboration (Table 3) was the most frequently identified enabler for the needs of impact attribution and action-oriented communication. Participants referred to the importance of interdisciplinary research and collaboration with emergency services, decision-makers and knowledge brokers to pair EEA statements with extreme event impact information and action-oriented recommendations.

Collaboration was also an influential enabler noted by scientists for meeting scientific comprehension needs. Scientists reiterated the importance of engagement, feedback and workshops with decision-makers as tools for improving EEA communication.

Skills and resources (Table 3) was the most frequently identified enabler for the methodology need by scientists. Scientists referred to the use of research and computational power to refine modelling for EEA methodology. Communicators most frequently identified standardisation (Table 3) as an enabler for meeting methodology needs. 42% of communicators referred to consistent, agreed definitions, baselines and methods as key facilitators in meeting this need.

In addition to the five enabler themes identified for impact attribution, 14% of participants identified other enablers, such as engaging with external stakeholders who support or are responsible for impact attribution communication, decision-makers and media.

Across the decision-maker needs, 70% of scientists and communicators agreed that the identified enablers would facilitate their organisation’s ability to meet decision-maker needs. Just over three quarters (80%) supported the use of enablers to meet the language, methodology and scientific comprehension needs.

When asked: “What are the key steps to meeting [inserted need] moving forward?” six key themes became apparent. These themes were similar to the enablers identified with one additional theme identified for pathways forward, scientific advancements. Scientific advancements encompassed developments in attribution science methods and data, which support organisations in meeting decision-making needs for attribution information. Across all decision-maker needs, scientists and communicators identified collaboration and communication as imperative pathways forward to meeting these needs (Figure 4).

Communication (Table 3) was the most frequently identified theme for pathways forward to meet decision-making needs. Common pathways forward identified included the use of communications experts, alongside suggested modes of communication to improve the delivery of EEA to decision-makers. Key suggestions included the use of visuals and knowledge brokers:

Collaboration (Table 3) for scientists and communicators was another commonly identified theme for impact attribution and for action-oriented communication, where it was more commonly reported by scientists than by communicators. Language had similar results. For scientific comprehension, collaboration was identified by more communicators than scientists. For pathways forward, participants additionally referred to the importance of co-design for impact attribution research and development. For action-oriented communication, 39% of communicator responses referred to other pathways forward, including, for example, increasing public awareness of EEA research:

Standardisation (Table 3) was also identified as an important pathway forward for scientists (35%) in improving methodology needs.

Overall, there is a high level of agreement for pathways forward for EEA communication, with three-quarters of scientists and communicators agreeing that there are feasible pathways forward to meet decision-maker needs. For all five pathway forward themes, more than three-quarters of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the pathways forward facilitate their ability to meet the need for decision-makers. The agreement percentages were high and consistent between scientist and communicator categories for most needs.

The final survey question asked participants, “How many years are we away from meeting [need]?”. In this analysis, the phrase less than or within five years, refers to “0–1 years” and “2–5 years” collectively, with more than five years, referring to “6–9 years” and “10+ years" collectively.

For language, methodology, action-oriented communication and scientific comprehension, most participants predicted that these needs would be met in under five years. Both scientists (61%) and communicators (75%) indicated that impact attribution would take more than five years; however, more scientists (30%) proposed 10+ years than communicators (8%).

For language, more than three-quarters of scientists (88%) and communicators (93%) indicated that this need could be met within 5 years. For methodology, under a quarter (21%) of scientists predicted that it would take more than five years to meet the need, whereas few communicators (13%) selected more than five years. For impact attribution, more scientists (30%) predicted 10+ years than communicators (8%). Most communicators (73%) and scientists (67%) believe action-oriented communication could occur within the next five years. Communicators (18%) were more likely than scientists (8%) to select 10+ years. For scientific comprehension, no communicators indicated 10+ years; however, two (9%) scientists did.

Our aim was to identify how scientists and communicators can better meet decision-maker needs for EEA science in Australia and NZ. As the first study of its kind, we systematically identified the current capabilities, barriers, enablers and pathways forward for scientists and communicators to meet decision-maker needs. The results revealed the importance of collaboration and communication between scientists and decision-makers if EEA is to be effectively used.

After being introduced to the five key decision-maker needs for EEA communication, scientists and communicators expressed that they are currently able to meet language and scientific comprehension needs. This suggests that when made aware of the importance of EEA information to users and decision-makers, scientists and communicators are able to actively adapt their outputs to be more user-friendly, particularly through language and wording improvements (Schwab et al., 2017; Lavender et al., 2022; Boulter et al., 2023).

When asked about their ability to meet methodology needs, scientist and communicator responses differed. This suggests the two groups may percieve the challenge of communicating EEA methodologies differently, with scientists more optimistic than communicators, who appear more realistic about the challenges decision-makers face in understanding EEA (Oreskes, 2020; Getson et al., 2021). This difference may be because communicators are consider user perceptions as part of their practice. This reveals a gap between scientist and user understanding and emphasises the need for further investment and understanding in co-design and user-centred approaches (Boulter et al., 2023; Hope et al., 2023).

The lack of impact attribution and action-oriented inclusions in EEA and climate statements demonstrates that the role of scientific production currently does not include information aspects that are most important to decision-makers – the practical applications (Grose et al., 2024). This highlights the siloed nature of scientific knowledge production and emphasises the need to understand what the barriers to meeting these needs are, as well as the enablers and pathways forward. Dilling and Lemos (2011) support this, emphasising that when science is only produced based on the pursuit of knowledge, the applicability of the science is often missed in the process. Wall et al. (2017) highlight that this may be because practical applications are not a necessary requirement for research funding.

Barriers such as scientific limitations and responsibility limit the ability for scientists and communicators to currently meet impact attribution and action-oriented communication needs. Lewis et al. (2019) and Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al. (2025) highlight that using traditional EEA methods to incorporate impact outcomes has the potential for misinterpreted results, emphasising the current scientific limitations in meeting impact attribution needs. Impact attribution is often thought to be beyond current scientific capabilities (King et al., 2023), with many research gaps present, including data limitations of extreme event impacts, difficulties modelling localised event impacts and the complexities of incorporating compounding extremes into analyses.

Responsibility is also a barrier that limits the scientific ability to meet decision-maker needs. The internal structures and responsibilities within roles and organisations that prevent attribution scientists from meeting decision-making needs are often restrictions from job descriptions or funding mechanisms (Pagano et al., 2001; Kirchhoff et al., 2013). Rayner et al. (2005) found that organisational culture and structure significantly influence whether decision-makers will use climate knowledge to inform decisions. Getson et al. (2021) emphasise that there are uncertainties for climate scientists around their limits of responsibility, particularly when promoting climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies to policymakers and the public. Oreskes (2020) agrees, highlighting that there are social expectations placed upon scientists to meet public needs; however, it is important to recognise that the ability of scientists to communicate effectively to users is often limited.

Similarly, lack of knowledge in decision-making processes creates a barrier to producing action-oriented recommendations. If scientists and communicators do not understand the full extent of diverse decision-maker needs, they may be challenged by the need to tailor EEA statements (Vogel and O’Brien, 2006). This is emphasised by Tarhule and Lamb (2003), who outline that there are gaps in institutions and organisations, where there is no link between scientific knowledge producers and the users of scientific information.

To meet the five decision-maker needs, enablers and pathways forward are needed to overcome the aforementioned barriers. Some enablers resolve specific barriers; however, other enablers holistically meet decision-maker needs. Enablers and pathways forward are strongly aligned with interdisciplinary collaboration and communication practise and expertise being the most prominent identified themes for both enablers and pathways forward to meet four of the five decision-maker needs. Additionally, skills and resources, standardised guidelines and practices are key enablers and pathways forward to meeting methodology needs for decision-makers.

Scientists and communicators highlighted that communications expertise and collaboration are much-needed enablers to meet EEA communication needs such as language and scientific comprehension. One enabler and pathway forward identified by scientists included increasing collaboration with communications experts, such as knowledge brokers, so that scientists can better understand user and decision-maker needs and tailor their scientific communications accordingly (Boulter et al., 2023). Knowledge brokers specialise in bridging the gaps across science-policy interactions to support effective decision-making. This has the potential to assist climate risk management in Australia (Lewis et al., 2023), providing guidance for improving EEA uptake by decision-makers and for science communication more broadly (Jacobs et al., 2005; van Oldenborgh et al., 2021). The development of the Cross-Jurisdictional Community of Practice for Climate Science (CJ COP CS) in 2019 has seen the delivery of Australia’s first-ever interjurisdictional climate knowledge brokering team through the National Environmental Science Program (NESP). The team of knowledge brokers works across states and territories to build a national picture of user and decision-maker requirements. This role has only recently been embedded into governments and is important for the co-design and delivery of climate science to users and decision-makers. In NZ, the Deep South National Science Challenge ^[3], which ran for ten years until 2024, was a major effort to connect physical and social scientists, industry, communities and government in the co-production of actionable climate change knowledge, including through knowledge brokers. Otherwise, in the smaller and more streamlined policy landscape of NZ, knowledge generation tends to occur through informal relationships (with a few exceptions for specific major hazards (e.g, earthquake; Barton et al., 2020). The informal knowledge generation and transfer is particularly the case with Māori communities and businesses, where the development of personal relationships is necessary to overcome years of mistrust of Pākehā (British-descendent) institutions (Saunders et al. 2023).

Additionally, in the US Pacific Island region, knowledge brokers have worked at the intersection of university climate knowledge producers and users, such as public officials, to increase the usability and use of scientific climate forecasts in planning and decision-making (Cash et al., 2006; McNie, 2007). There is strong emphasis from scientists and communicators that communications experts, skills and resources are needed to increase usability for decision-makers, suggesting that these tools would also support effective EEA communication.

Collaboration was highlighted as a key enabler and pathway forward to meet decision-making needs for EEA communication. Scientific limitations and responsibility are barriers for scientists and communicators to meet the needs of impact attribution and action-oriented communication; however, collaboration through co-design between decision-makers and scientific knowledge producers presents as an enabler and pathway forward to meet these needs. Interdisciplinary collaboration allows for EEA communication to be better informed, for example, through engaging emergency services on action-oriented recommendations prior to outputting EEA statements or conversing with local government decision-makers on localised impact information to be included into statements. The research literature emphasises the critical role of collaboration in the development of climate services and alignment with user needs. Such collaborations can provide critical platforms for scientists and producers to enhance their understanding of user needs and encourage science producers and users to take ownership of service design (Dilling and Lemos, 2011; Lemos et al., 2012; Kalafatis et al., 2019). Our research emphasises the role of science collaboration and communication in uplifting scientific capability and service delivery to address the increasing climate risks across Australia and NZ.

This is supported by van Oldenborgh et al. (2021) and Jézéquel et al. (2018), who emphasise the role collaboration plays between EEA scientists and relevant decision-making groups in identifying and targeting specific decision-making needs. The need to advance impact attribution research to support EEA communication was emphasised by both scientists and communicators. The scholarship reinforces this, highlighting the importance of conducting impact attribution assessments in tandem with EEA studies to provide decision-makers with a comprehensive understanding of climate change impacts, including those influenced by non-climatic drivers such as social vulnerability (Stone et al., 2021; Clarke et al., 2022; Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al., 2025). Additionally, Lede et al. (2021) find that coupling climate and non-climate drivers has positive implications for adaptation decision-making, emphasising the need for users, decision-makers, scientists and communicators to be considered as a group holistically.

Scientists and communicators concluded that improvements in language, methodology, action-oriented communication and scientific comprehension for EEA communication could all be met within the next five years if pathways forward are actioned and impact attribution needs are simplified. This time frame suggests that scientists and communicators in Australia may feel optimistic because of the recent inclusion of knowledge brokering into scientific communication across nearly all jurisdictions in Australia.

There is a clear demand from decision-makers for the inclusion, implementation and use of impact attribution in EEA statements to guide decision-making (Bourbon and Machin, 2024). However, our research shows that most scientists and some communicators perceive that this process would take more than five years. Bourbon and Machin (2024) and Boulter et al. (2023) emphasise that action-oriented communication for decision-makers is needed. The inclusion of impact linkage statements – statements that link EEA findings to impacts that are relevant to decision-makers – could help to meet this need, adding gravity to the statements and motivating decision-makers to act, while impact attribution science is still in development.

There were several limitations to the study. Most participants (92%) were recruited from Australia, with only 8% from NZ, which presents a bias towards Australian results in the sample.

The data collection workshop took place over 3.5 h after engaging in workshop presentations for 4 h. Participants may have experienced a decline in engagement, evident by the fewer responses for the needs of impact attribution and scientific comprehension, which were presented towards the end of the workshop.

Decision-maker needs for impact attribution may have been misinterpreted by workshop participants, impacting the timeline estimates for implementation. Scientists appeared to have assumed that decision-makers required accurate, scientific impact attribution findings, overlooking decision-maker needs for simple extreme event impact statements that can come from impact linkage statements.

This study is specific to the needs of decision-makers and the abilities of attribution scientists and communicators in Australia and NZ at a given point in time, reflecting the contextual limitations of the study’s results.

As the first study of its kind to identify how scientists and communicators can meet decision-maker needs from EEA communication, our research contributes to practical and theoretical implications to the EEA field and the co-design and communication scholarship within Australia, NZ and globally. It provides significant insights into the utility and importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and co-design. The multi-phased approach and methodology contribute to an emerging community of practice by providing decision-makers with a space to communicate their needs and through bringing scientists and communicators together from different institutions to understand and work towards addressing the needs. In turn, this study encourages ongoing engagement with decision-makers to gather their input on what action-oriented recommendations could accompany EEA statements.

To further uplift EEA science, communication and service delivery, future research should consider implementing the key findings of this study. This includes maintaining a positive feedback loop between scientists, communicators and decision-makers, which will enable the science and communication to align with user and decision-maker needs. It also involves continuing to work with decision-makers and adaptation experts to understand which action-oriented recommendations should be paired with EEA statements, further exploring visual communication options for EEA, and developing, conducting and assessing novel impact attribution research and EEA studies in Australia and NZ. A continuous feedback process between scientists and decision-makers is recommended by Boulter et al. (2023) and Hoffmann et al. (2023), who emphasise that effective co-design relies on ongoing, adaptive engagement and evaluation based on user perspectives. While these findings will contribute to the uplift of EEA communication and service delivery, this study is just the beginning.

Further research is required to understand how scientist and communicator abilities evolve with changing decision-making needs, as well as evolving attribution and communication capabilities. Additionally, further insights to understand EEA communication to support climate justice would be beneficial to increase understanding of Indigenous needs for EEA information. Deeper understandings of how scientists and communicators can deliver EEA for decision-maker needs could better inform loss and damage policy, insurance allocations and adaptation efforts (Stott and Walton, 2013; James et al., 2014; Sippel et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2024; Scown et al., 2025).

Uplifting scientific capability and service delivery in the attribution field presents an opportunity to better address the increasing climate risks across Australia and NZ. To the best of the author's knowledge, this study is the first of its kind globally to identify how scientists and communicators can meet the needs of EEA decision-makers, emphasising the need for co-design to effectively understand decision-making needs and scientific capabilities. The research findings can be used to inform national and international operational attribution services to meet user and decision-maker needs, specifically increasing capability on how to maximise the uptake of EEA information by decision-makers who seek to address extreme heat and rainfall risks.

Scientists and communicators identified that they are currently able to meet the language and methodology needs for EEA communication to decision-makers. However, addressing the remaining needs of impact attribution, action-oriented communication and scientific comprehension, will require leveraging of enablers and pathways forward such as communication resources, expertise and interdisciplinary collaboration. Additionally, co-design and positive feedback processes between scientists, communicators and decision-makers will contribute to meeting these needs. Meeting decision-maker needs will ultimately enhance the delivery and uptake of EEA information across Australia and NZ.

Moving forward, future research is needed to increase participation in, and the breadth and publication of EEA research. Iterative co-design feedback processes should be used to further understand how scientists and communicators can communicate EEA to Australian and NZ local governments, non-government decision-makers and the public. Applying the co-design methodology from this study can promote the utility of mixed-methods design approaches in other fields of scientific or climate communication. Furthermore, continued investments in building relationships and understanding user and decision-maker needs have the potential to maximise the uptake of attribution information. Most importantly, these insights will uplift EEA science for decision-makers in Australia and NZ and help to reduce the threat of climate impacts on human and natural systems.

Thank you to the climate scientists and communicators for contributing to the findings at the centre of this research. Thank you Associate Professor Djuke Veldhuis and the Monash University, Science Advanced – Global Challenges team for this opportunity. Thank you to Eric Lede, Dr Pandora Hope and Dr Brenda Mackie for trusting and guiding me through the novelty of this project, and for your inspiration. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Helen Bloustein, Sarah Bassett, David Putland, Ramona Dalla Pozza, Kelly Barnes and Tahnee Burgess from NESP for your knowledge brokering support. Finally, a special thank you to Hannah Bourbon for your wisdom and friendship, and to Raj and my family for your constant support.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.