Evaluation of the Adaptation Scotland Programme

Process evaluation findings

The process evaluation assessed the design, implementation and delivery processes of the Adaptation Scotland Programme. This chapter addresses the process evaluation questions (see the accompanying appendices document). It draws upon monitoring information (MI) and stakeholder feedback on what has worked well and less well, including barriers and enablers encountered.

Key findings

Stakeholders generally viewed the Programme’s design, governance and delivery arrangements positively. The four-year contract period and two-phase design process were considered beneficial, enabling delivery to evolve in response to learning and align with the publication of SNAP3.

Evidence from MI and stakeholder interviews suggests that the Programme was implemented broadly as intended. The flexible delivery model, supported by a strong working relationship between Scottish Government and Verture, enabled activities to be refined in response to stakeholder feedback, emerging learning and changing policy priorities.

The Programme engaged stakeholders across the public, private and community sectors through networks, events, guidance, communications and tailored support. Stakeholders valued the Programme’s responsive and collaborative approach, although some audiences, particularly SMEs, smaller public bodies and groups without established representative organisations, were reported to be more difficult to engage.

Partnership working was a key feature of delivery. Collaboration with delivery partners and sector organisations was considered to strengthen the relevance and reach of Programme activities, although reliance on external partners occasionally contributed to delays in delivery.

Across the clusters, evidence suggests that the Programme supported knowledge sharing, adaptation planning, partnership development and policy development. Stakeholders reported increased visibility of adaptation across a range of sectors and policy areas, although progress was viewed as uneven. Progress was strongest in public sector and place-based activity, while private sector engagement, the translation of increased knowledge into adaptation action, and the embedding of adaptation across some wider policy areas were less developed. Wider factors beyond the Programme’s direct control also influenced progress.

Design of the Programme

Stakeholders generally viewed the design of the Adaptation Scotland Programme positively. The four-year contract was seen as beneficial for relationship building and longer-term planning, while the two-phase approach enabled the Programme to evolve in response to learning and align more closely with SNAP3.

Programme management stakeholders said that the procurement model initially limited flexibility and that the original specification placed greater emphasis on delivering outputs than achieving outcomes and impacts.

“In the initial sort of two year period, it did feel almost like a shopping list of activities and deliverables as opposed to what are the things that are going to really create change in Scotland and really help build capacity across these different sectors.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Stakeholders considered the second phase re-design beneficial, providing an opportunity to refine the Programme and strengthen alignment with SNAP3. Re-designing the Programme with an existing delivery partner was also thought to support a quicker and more collaborative design process. This also minimised the risk of the Scottish Government and delivery partner having different expectations of the Programme going forward.

Scottish Government stakeholders valued Verture's operational expertise and understanding of what would work across different stakeholder groups and settings. The relationship between Scottish Government and Verture was described as collaborative, with regular communication and an iterative approach to workplan development supporting effective Programme design.

However, some Programme management stakeholders felt the Adaptation Scotland Board could have played a greater role in strategic co-design. There was a view that the Board's involvement was largely limited to reviewing and signing off workplans, reducing opportunities to draw on members' expertise and strengthen alignment with wider climate policy. For example, it was suggested that the Board could be more actively involved in shaping Programme priorities and proposed activities, using members’ expertise to explore different approaches, identify potential barriers and inform workplans before they were finalised.

Some Programme management stakeholders also felt that opportunities to reflect on and apply learning from phase one had been limited, and suggested that more formal learning and evaluation throughout the contract period could have informed Programme development.

Stakeholder involvement in the design process

Across Programme management and Scottish Government policy interviews, there were mixed views on whether the level of engagement with wider stakeholders in the design of the Programme in both phases had been sufficient. Some felt that it could have been beneficial to engage with more stakeholders in the design, including further involvement of representatives from other policy areas within the Scottish Government (e.g. flooding, health and wellbeing), communities, and the private sector. For example, it was suggested by a Programme management stakeholder and a public sector stakeholder that the Programme management team had initially lacked experience of working with the private sector, and working more closely with these groups may have given them greater insight and enabled more effective delivery of support from the outset.

“[Involving the community groups, third sector groups, and businesses in shaping the Programme] would be beneficial as well because we try to bring insights but I think there's maybe been a lot of assumption baked into that, particularly around some of the private sector work that we've ultimately then had to retrospectively change or challenge…” (Programme management stakeholder)

However, others noted that, due to the resources available, the Programme could only do so much to engage with a wider pool of stakeholders, particularly other policy areas within Scottish Government, without over-promising on what could be delivered. Some Programme management stakeholders considered that the Policy Forum, a quarterly gathering that follows on from the Board meeting, had sufficiently allowed for a wider breadth of policy areas.

Programme governance

The Programme is governed by the Scottish Government, with a Programme Board providing strategic oversight. At an operational level, delivery is managed through a partnership between the Scottish Government contract manager and Verture, supported by regular fortnightly meetings.

Trusted partnership between Scottish Government and Verture

There was broad agreement among Programme management and delivery stakeholders that a trusted partnership had been established between Scottish Government and Verture. Stakeholders reported that regular communication, particularly fortnightly meetings between the Scottish Government contract manager and Verture programme manager, supported collaborative working and flexible decision-making. Having named contacts at different levels of seniority within both organisations was also viewed as a strength, providing continuity and clear routes for escalation where required.

“There's a lot of trust, a lot of respect and a lot of understanding that's been built up over the years.” (Programme management stakeholder)

However, it was noted by Programme management stakeholders that, as there have been no major issues relating to the delivery of the programme, the governance structures have not been stress-tested. The resilience of the governance structures under different circumstances, involving different key individuals or without trusting relationships among partners, is an unknown.

Programme Board

Programme management stakeholders generally viewed the Board as engaged and supportive. Stakeholders highlighted constructive input from representatives across relevant Scottish Government policy areas and suggested that publication of SNAP3 had increased engagement by demonstrating the relevance of adaptation across government portfolios. Generally, Board members were thought to be well informed and prepared.

“I would say the Adaptation Scotland Programme [Board] is probably the most engaged Board I've ever worked with. I think the fact that so many people from different directorates and outwith the Scottish Government turn up every quarter, usually having read all the papers and usually very willing to contribute to discussion and make connections and I think that is working really well.” (Programme management stakeholder)

However, Board members also said that, due to other commitments and demands on their time, their involvement in the Programme outside of these quarterly meetings was limited. Further, not all Board members attended every Board meeting, and some found that they were less able to contribute in some meetings that were focused on aspects of the Programme unrelated to their role or outside of their area of expertise.

Keeping the Board informed and up to date on the nuances of the Programme was highlighted as a challenge by Programme management stakeholders, presenting a barrier to the Board providing strategic input on specific aspects of the Programme. It was suggested that this knowledge gap could be filled by the Board engaging with the Programme in other ways, and by being mindful that Board papers should be aimed at an audience who may not have thought about the Programme for a few months (e.g. ensuring that board papers are engaging and defining each cluster when referenced).

“I think there is scope for more engagement and input from the Board in between the quarterly board sessions… I think it would help us to have a better sense of what is actually happening across policy areas where we are working as a Programme to support, based on what they said they'd wanted and also to kind of make those connections as well.” (Programme management stakeholder)

The Policy Forum was viewed as a useful complement to the Board by providing wider stakeholders with opportunities to inform Programme delivery and identify areas where further support may be required. Both the Board and Policy Forum were generally described as well organised, with meetings running smoothly and papers circulated in advance.

Programme monitoring

Progress is tracked using an operational plan and a "RAG table" (Red, Amber, Green status), which the Verture Programme Manager uses to update the Board on key performance indicators (KPIs). At the end of each year, Verture deliver an annual progress report, outlining progress to date against each KPI, which is published on the Adaptation Scotland website.

There was a view that the monitoring of progress towards outcomes is highly quantitative. For example, KPIs outlined in the annual report include ‘Number of businesses engaged and supported’, and ‘Number of organisations actively benchmarking via the Adaptation Scotland Adaptation Capability Framework’. It was noted that this meant other indicators of progress are not always fully captured, such as building trusted relationships, awareness raising, or seeking out opportunities for collaboration. It was suggested that this risked the Programme becoming too focused on meeting targets rather than bringing about change and meeting the ambitions set out in national policy.

Programme implementation and delivery

MI and interviews with Programme management stakeholders suggest that the core delivery model of the Adaptation Scotland Programme has broadly been implemented as intended. The Programme has been delivered by Verture through a cluster-based approach, with partners subcontracted to deliver specific activities.

Most planned activities and outputs were ultimately delivered. In some cases, delivery of specific activities deviated from original plans where the Programme responded to partner capacity or stakeholder feedback. For example, a planned training initiative for a community partner under Cluster 2 (community and third sector leadership) was revised to better suit the partner’s capacity, moving from direct delivery through the Programme to community members to a “train the trainer” model that allowed for partner staff to deliver the initiative themselves.

Similarly, an adaptation finance training course delivered as part of planned activities under Cluster 4 (knowledge, innovation and research) had been adjusted following early feedback from a subcontractor who had found the course too advanced for the intended audience. One planned resource for the built environment sector did not proceed because engagement with the intended external partner could not be progressed. The resource allocated to this activity was subsequently redirected elsewhere within the Programme in response to requests from social housing providers for advice.

Delayed outputs included case studies and industry-specific resources, which were subsequently delivered in full.

Beyond these activity-level changes, the Programme’s overall approach was deliberately revised in response to strategic learning, external policy developments, and feedback from stakeholders. The adaptability of the Programme was thought to have been enabled by the opportunity to revisit the implementation plans after the first two years of the contract, supported by the strong working relationship between the Scottish Government and Verture.

For example, the Programme responded to changing requirements set out in SNAP3 by reviewing how resources allocated to Cluster 6 (place-based adaptation through regional collaboration) could best contribute to the commitment to establish regional adaptation partnerships across all regions of Scotland by 2029.^[1] As a result, the Programme shifted from providing one-to-one support to individual partnerships to overarching support that all regions could access.

“We were able to review the programme in light of the objectives and activities within SNAP3. We tweaked some of them, we changed some of them, we put in new ones, took some out to make sure that everything we were doing was delivering SNAP3” (Programme management stakeholder)

Collaboration to support programme delivery

The Adaptation Scotland Programme worked with delivery partners from academic, private, and third-sector backgrounds. Key examples include Climate Springboard (University of Edinburgh), who was subcontracted to deliver training to enterprise agencies and scope a private sector network, Paul Watkiss Associates, who was subcontracted to deliver specialist training on adaptation finance, and Glasgow Disability Alliance, who co-delivered a workshop for their members to input into the SNAP3 consultation.

Programme management stakeholders suggested that collaboration had strengthened delivery by combining the Programme’s expertise on adaptation with partners' specialist technical knowledge and sector expertise. For example, co-developing resources with partners helped ensure that support reflected the needs and contexts of different audiences. MI also suggests that collaboration enabled the Programme to draw on expertise and capacity that was not available within the core Programme team, for example through the use of specialist subcontractors and sector partners in the design and delivery of training, tools and guidance. Partners generally described working with the Programme as a positive, collaborative experience.

“They were very willing partners to, to listen and take on board what we were saying... So that was good overall." (Third/community sector stakeholder)

However, partner availability and capacity sometimes limited the Programme's ability to deliver activities within agreed timescales. Examples included postponed workshops with third sector partners (including CEMVO and Six Degrees) due to capacity constraints, delays to community case studies linked to Climate Action Hub capacity, and repeated delays to industry-specific engagement activities because of limited availability and engagement from key private sector partners. MI suggests that these challenges were, in part, a consequence of the Programme's collaborative delivery model, which relied on partner organisations to deliver some activities. This risk was recognised within the Programme's risk register, which identified delays to deliverables arising from partnership working as a high-risk issue and set out mitigating actions such as planning activities well in advance and establishing clear expectations with partners.

“I think the majority [of] things that get rolled over or get delayed, the vast majority of things involve external partners...So, if they're not available then that's totally an understandable reason for why they might not have been able to progress.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Programme team skills and ways of working

Alongside collaboration with external partners, stakeholders identified the Programme team’s ways of working as an important enabler of delivery. Stakeholders valued Verture staff’s adaptation expertise, understanding of different sectors and ability to translate complex evidence into practical support.

“One of the values that the Adaptation Scotland Programme has, and actually Verture as a whole… is that we have that experience of taking the research, which is sometimes completely impenetrable to anybody other than an academic, and translating it into understandable things for decision makers, policymakers, senior leaders, communities, other practitioners that actually do the delivery on the ground.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Trusted relationships were built through sustained engagement, responsiveness and regular contact, while allocating staff to particular clusters enabled them to develop specialist knowledge and relationships with relevant organisations. However, this relationship-based approach required considerable staff time, and stakeholders highlighted the importance of sharing knowledge and contacts across clusters.

“That partnership approach that [Adaptation Scotland] take, so collaborating with the people that have those local links…that deepens the impact that they can have. Their partnership and collaboration approaches, I think, have been very successful, are very successful, and I think key across the whole climate and adaptation space if we want to do more.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Programme resource and capacity

Individuals involved in Programme delivery suggested that the resources allocated to the Programme were largely adequate for delivering the core contracted activities. Large projects, such as the overhaul of the Adaptation Scotland website, were thought to have stretched the available resource for limited periods of time.

“As with all things, it would be nice to do more, to be able to do more at scale, but that's budget dependent” (Programme management stakeholder)

However, some Programme management stakeholders felt that capacity constrained activity beyond core delivery, particularly collaboration, relationship building and partnership development, which were seen as vital for the Programme to achieve its stated aims and deepen its impact. As such, there was a view that the Programme would benefit from both a narrower focus and additional resource.

“That resourcing of the connections that need to be made beyond, which is often just sort of assumed is a thing that will happen as opposed to actually being resourced. And a lot of time and effort goes into actually building relationships and trust and connections and identifying those synergies and opportunities for shared work and impact.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Some stakeholders raised concerns that the broad remit of the Programme had led to an element of scope creep, with staff delivering beyond the contracted activities. Having a team that were passionate about adaptation, and who were willing to go above and beyond in working towards wider outcomes, was seen as having contributed to the Programme being able to deliver more with the available resource. Verture staff were described by partners and stakeholders as extremely responsive, pro-active, and solutions-focused.

“One of the things that I did request that was additional… was a half day workshop to train the colleagues who were then going to do the Climate Change Risk Assessment with me... And [Verture] were really great at coming back and saying, yep, we'll do it, we'll come and we'll speak to them so that you can kick off with that." (Private sector stakeholder)

A public sector stakeholder suggested that because the staff were so passionate about the work, this could lead them to being over-stretched.

“I would have a slight concern perhaps sometimes that they're taking on too much and spreading themselves too thin just because they care so passionately about the topic and the work.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Staff turnover was also identified as a challenge. Stakeholders reported that vacancies and changes in key roles occasionally delayed planned activities and partnerships. However, Programme management stakeholders generally felt these impacts had been managed effectively. MI demonstrates that Verture had implemented mitigation and recovery actions to minimise disruption arising from staff departures or vacancies.

Engagement with the Programme

The Adaptation Scotland Programme aims to support public bodies, businesses and communities in Scotland to increase their resilience and help them to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

MI suggests that, from 2023-2026, organisations across all target groups have engaged with the Programme, including:

• 76 public sector organisations as members of PSCAN.
• 171 businesses advisors.
• 360 community members and organisations (including 20 island communities).

The type and intensity of support received varied among stakeholders from more intensive support to more light touch. Examples of intensive support included: one-to-one support initially provided to establish regional adaptation partnerships; co-developing resources, guidance and adaptation approaches; tailored workshops co-delivered with and for specific organisations and sectors; ongoing engagement through networks; participation in specialist training programmes; and capacity-building support designed to enable organisations to support others.

More light-touch forms of engagement with the Programme included attendance at workshops, webinars and events, infrequent participation in networks, receiving Programme communications, and accessing information, tools and resources through the Adaptation Scotland website.

Organisations could also utilise the Adaptation Scotland website, its tools and resources, without engaging with the Programme directly. For example, MI shows that, for 2025-2026, the first full year of the new Programme website, there was an increase in new users of the website who had found the content via search engine results, rather than direct links (from 4,100 new users in Q2 to 7,500 by Q4).

Generally, stakeholders who had requested support from the Programme found that the Programme was open and responsive to their needs, and that their requests were responded to in good time. Public sector stakeholders described being encouraged to contact the Programme with any queries or requests outside of PSCAN meetings. Stakeholders also described the Programme going above and beyond to meet requests for support.

“[The level of support] can be anything you want. Yeah, it can be absolutely anything. You're free to send emails at any point, or if you need a wee quick teams call you can have that. There is monthly sessions, so it can be a drop in or a lunch and learn... It's demand driven, so if we need help, we ask and we get it. So it's very, very open and flexible. There's never been an issue.” (Public sector stakeholder)

There were limited reported instances where the Programme either had not responded to specific queries or had not been able to provide further support. For example, a public sector organisation noted that they had not heard back when they had contacted the Programme. Another private sector stakeholder noted that, while the Adaptation Scotland was initially able to support them, the Programme had been unable to fulfil a further request due to funding constraints.

"We did reach out to see if they could help chair another workshop, which they said they could, but they didn't have funding at the time.” (Private sector stakeholder)

Views were more mixed on the extent to which the Programme proactively engaged stakeholders. While some stakeholders reported that Adaptation Scotland regularly sought their feedback on support needs and opportunities to tailor provision, others felt they had needed to identify and access support themselves. This was also reflected in an interview with a Programme management stakeholder, who thought that the Programme could be more proactive in engaging with the Climate Action Hubs, rather than responding to demand.

Programme management and delivery stakeholders identified some audiences as more difficult to engage than others. The private sector, and SMEs in particular, were seen as a challenge to engage, largely because adaptation was not perceived as an immediate business priority unless organisations had directly experienced climate-related impacts. In the public sector, organisations with limited capacity, no dedicated climate adaptation resource, or less understanding of adaptation's relevance to their role were considered less likely to engage. Programme management and delivery stakeholders also suggested that some public sector organisations struggled to understand how climate adaptation related to their role or organisation.

“If I'm a business owner, it's probably still far from, if we're honest, far from the top of my list to be thinking about. Unless I've been impacted perhaps by a flood or overheating in the premises that I'm operating and that's impacting on my goods”. (Programme management stakeholder)

Interviews with organisations that had not engaged directly with the Programme suggested that this did not necessarily reflect a lack of interest in the support available. Several considered the Programme relevant to their work but said that proactive, tailored contact would have been needed to initiate engagement.

“I'm constantly basically firefighting and just doing whatever is needed. So unless somebody from Adaptation Scotland came and said ‘hey, let's have a chat, let's do this’, I have no idea if that's something I need” (Third sector stakeholder)

Programme Management and delivery stakeholders suggested that there was a risk that the work done by Verture to deliver the Programme, and the wider work done by Verture as a charity, could be conflated. For example, the Adaptation Scotland newsletter and the Verture (formerly Sniffer) newsletter had been the same until they were “decoupled” in 2023.

Interviews with stakeholders showed that some were unclear about the relationship between Adaptation Scotland, Verture and the Scottish Government. This could create uncertainty regarding what support was available, who was responsible for delivering it, and where stakeholders should go to access support or advice. This also presented challenges for monitoring and evaluating the Programme's impact in isolation from Verture activity.

Programme communications

During the contract period, Cluster 5 (communication and engagement) underwent several changes, including the introduction of a new communications and engagement strategy, the launch of a new Adaptation Scotland website “adaptation.scot” in September 2024, a move from X to LinkedIn, and the introduction of a standalone newsletter.

Stakeholders who had engaged with the Programme were generally positive about its communications. The Adaptation Scotland website, quarterly newsletter and reminders about specific resources were highlighted as particularly useful. Communications were viewed as accessible and engaging, avoiding unnecessary technical language, while stakeholders were also positive about the quality, style and frequency of information received through PSCAN.

“I think [the communication’s] pretty good. I mean if it’s not through their website, it's through emails, if it’s not through emails, it's through their webinars, presentations, meetings. So they are very active and visible...” (Public sector stakeholder)

However, there was some evidence that the website did not make the Programme’s wider support offer or routes to accessing support sufficiently clear. One stakeholder viewed Adaptation Scotland primarily as a website and was unsure what support the Programme could provide or whether it would be appropriate to contact the team directly.

“I don't know what that offer is, so I'm not just going to cold call them and say, what have you got that you can do to help me? So I haven't had any direct relationship with Adaption Scotland. As far as I know, they're just a website, though I'm sure they're not just a website. My relationship is with PSCAN.” (Public sector stakeholder)

MI suggests that the reach of Programme communications increased over the contract period. Between June 2025 and June 2026, the Adaptation Scotland LinkedIn page gained 866 followers. The Adaptation Scotland website received 33,000 unique visitors between April 2025 and May 2026, compared with 26,000 during the same period in 2024-25 and 16,000 in 2023-24.

Website analytics also indicate sustained engagement with Programme resources. Between January 2025 and June 2026, the most frequently accessed resources included Climate Change Trends and Projections (4,275 page views), the Climate Adaptation Capability Framework (2,897 page views) and the Community Climate Adaptation Routemap (2,219 page views).

Programme management stakeholders highlighted attendance at external events as an effective way of extending the Programme's reach. There was also some evidence that involving stakeholders in communications activity could increase engagement. For example, a PSCAN ‘takeover’^[2] of the Programme's LinkedIn page achieved a higher engagement rate than average, although there was limited evidence that this translated into increased participation in PSCAN or wider awareness of the Programme.

However, Programme management stakeholders felt that communications were more effective at engaging audiences already interested in adaptation than those who had not yet begun considering adaptation risks.

“We are reaching the people within those audiences that are interested in adaptation... We're not necessarily hitting some people within those audiences that haven't started thinking about it yet.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Stakeholders noted that some communications channels, such as newsletters and LinkedIn, were primarily designed to maintain engagement with existing audiences rather than attract new ones.

“On LinkedIn it's the professional audience essentially... It's not necessarily looking for new people that don't have any idea what Adaptation Scotland is." (Programme management stakeholder)

Organisations that had not engaged with Adaptation Scotland suggested that more personalised approaches, such as one-to-one contact, face-to-face briefings, attendance at network meetings and working through established intermediary organisations, would be more effective in raising awareness of available support. Stakeholders also noted that newsletters and general communications can easily be overlooked within busy workloads. This is reflected in MI showing that only around a quarter (23.4%) of subscribers opened the newsletter.

Programme delivery model

Evidence suggests that the Programme delivery model supports progress towards intended outcomes. Across stakeholder groups, support was delivered through a combination of networks, events, training, tools, guidance, partnership development and tailored support. This provided organisations with different ways of building awareness of the Programme and adaptation, and subsequently engaging with the support available.

However, progression from awareness to adaptation action was not consistent across stakeholder groups. Stakeholders highlighted organisational capacity, competing priorities and resource constraints as factors that could limit the extent to which organisations acted on the support available. As a result, progress remained dependent on factors beyond the Programme's direct control.

Cluster-based approach

Views on the cluster-based model were mixed. Programme management stakeholders reported that the approach provided a clear structure for delivering support to different audiences and gave Scottish Government identifiable leads for individual workstreams. The model was also seen as giving delivery staff a clear remit while providing opportunities for collaboration across clusters. Examples of cross-cluster collaboration were identified, including cluster leads have working together to develop resources, representatives from Climate Action Hubs presenting at PSCAN, and signposting of private sector stakeholders to regional adaptation partnerships.

However, some stakeholders felt that the approach risked reinforcing siloed ways of working. They observed individuals focusing on their own cluster and felt this could be creating duplication of effort and missed opportunities for cross-cluster learning.

No clear alternative to the cluster model was identified in interviews, although one Programme delivery stakeholder suggested that cross-cluster working could be built more formally into Programme planning.

Supporting the clusters

Public sector leadership (Cluster 1): evidence suggests that the Programme has supported public sector organisations through a combination of networks, tools, workshops and tailored support. Interviews with stakeholders highlighted that, for public sector stakeholders, engagement often began with PSCAN, which provided access to tools, examples and peer learning opportunities that could then be applied within their own organisations. Public sector stakeholders described using the tools and resources shared through the network to inform adaptation planning, while workshops and more tailored support were reported to have provided other public sector stakeholders with the knowledge and confidence to undertake organisational climate change risk assessments.

Communities and third sector leadership (Cluster 2): evidence suggests that the Programme supported capacity building primarily through workshops, facilitation, resources and engagement with intermediary organisations and networks. Stakeholders described how participation in events and collaborative activities enabled them to establish new relationships, access expertise and learn from the experiences of others. This approach helped build capability within organisations working with communities, although the extent to which support translated into action was often influenced by organisational capacity and resources.

Private sector (Cluster 3): evidence suggests that private sector engagement was supported through the co-development of resources and sector-specific engagement activities. This helped ensure resources reflected the needs of target audiences and increased the likelihood of practical application.

However, stakeholder and MI also highlighted that engagement remained challenging where adaptation was not perceived as an immediate business priority. Businesses were often more likely to consider adaptation after directly experiencing climate-related disruption, with SMEs described as having limited time and capacity to engage.

Programme management and delivery stakeholders suggested that engagement could be improved by framing adaptation in terms of immediate business concerns, such as business continuity, addressing the cost of implementing adaptation measures and support to secure appropriate funding, and by integrating support into existing mitigation work and business support activity. The Programme’s work with enterprise agencies, business advisers, trade bodies and other trusted intermediaries was also considered more effective than approaching businesses through standalone adaptation activity.

Knowledge exchange, innovation and research (Cluster 4): evidence suggests that the Programme embedded knowledge exchange through networks, events, workshops, training and collaborative activities. Stakeholders valued opportunities to access examples of adaptation practice, learn from peers and engage with organisations facing similar challenges. Programme activities also facilitated the sharing of expertise between sectors and organisations, while the Programme’s ability to translate complex evidence into accessible and practical information was seen as a particular strength.

However, Programme management stakeholders felt that the purpose and intended audience of some knowledge-exchange activities could have been clearer at the outset. Some stakeholders identified scope for stronger and more systematic connections between academic research, policy and practice.

Place-based adaptation through regional collaboration (Cluster 6): evidence suggests that the Programme primarily supported regional collaboration by supporting the establishment of regional adaptation partnerships. This was done through facilitation support, sharing of learning and best practice, and networking opportunities. Stakeholders linked Programme events and forums to the development of new relationships and collaborative activity, while support was generally viewed as responsive to the differing needs and maturity of regional partnerships. However, the funding model for regional adaptation partnerships was identified as an element outside of the Programme’s control, and as a risk for sustained collaboration in areas with established partnerships.

Policy support (Cluster 7): evidence suggests that the Programme has contributed to efforts to mainstream adaptation across several policy areas. Through participation in consultations, working groups, guidance development and evidence-gathering activities, Adaptation Scotland contributed adaptation expertise to policy processes. Effectiveness in policy support is discussed further in Contribution Claim 4.