Evaluation of the Adaptation Scotland Programme

Impact evaluation findings

The impact evaluation explored the Programme’s progress towards its intended outcomes, using a Contribution Analysis approach. This chapter sets out the evidence gathered against each of the five Contribution Claims developed for the Programme, addressing the impact evaluation questions (see supporting appendices document). It draws upon monitoring information (MI) and stakeholder insights to test each contribution story, as set out in the Theory of Change, and set out other contributing factors. Evidence for the contribution claims is presented and discussed in relation to each stage of the causal pathway for the claim. A strength of evidence assessment for each contribution claim can be found in this report under Appendix A.

Key findings

The evaluation found strongest evidence of impact in relation to the Programme’s contribution to building networks, increasing knowledge and confidence, and improving access to adaptation tools and resources. Stakeholders consistently reported that networks, events, training and peer learning opportunities had strengthened understanding of climate adaptation and increased confidence to act on adaptation and climate resilience activities within their respective organisations.

There was also strong evidence of the Programme’s contribution to collaboration and place-based adaptation through its support for the Climate Ready Regions initiative. Stakeholders consistently described Adaptation Scotland’s role in convening partners, facilitating collaboration, sharing learning and supporting regional planning as critical to the establishment and development of partnerships across Scotland. The Programme was widely viewed as accelerating progress and creating the foundations for future adaptation action.

Evidence was weaker for organisations translating increased knowledge, confidence and collaboration into adaptation action. While there were some examples of adaptation action evidence of implementation was less consistent and progress was often constrained by factors beyond the Programme’s control, including organisational capacity, funding constraints, competing priorities and senior leadership support.

While the Programme had engaged with a range of groups vulnerable to climate change, evidence showing how the views of vulnerable groups had been acted on to influence policy decisions was weaker. While stakeholders identified examples of Programme-supported engagement with vulnerable groups informing policy discussions and consultation processes, evidence of direct policy influence or tangible changes resulting from these contributions was less clear.

Contribution Claim 1: Networks

The Adaptation Scotland Programme has contributed to the development of a growing network of leaders across Scotland who are driving effective adaptation action.

The Programme engages businesses, communities and public bodies to form and grow networks in place-based approaches to climate adaptation. These growing networks support leaders to increase their knowledge and understanding of what adaptation actions are needed and how to act. This enables leaders to take more ownership and responsibility to drive adaptation action and share knowledge on adaptation.

This contribution claim relates to the outcome set out in the Theory of Change that ‘Scotland has a growing network of leaders from across society who are empowered and working together, using their influence to drive adaptation action across sectors and places’.

Overall assessment of contribution

Evidence collected through the evaluation indicates that the Programme has contributed to the development of adaptation-focused networks. The Programme supported formal networks, alongside events, that have enabled stakeholders to connect, collaborate and share learning.

There was strong and consistent evidence that participation in these networking opportunities had increased stakeholders' knowledge and understanding of adaptation, particularly among organisations at an earlier stage of their adaptation journey. Stakeholders frequently described gaining access to peer support and practical examples that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain.

There was also evidence that this learning had empowered participants to take greater ownership of adaptation within their organisations and provided confidence to champion adaptation activities. However, evidence that this had translated into adaptation action was less consistent. While participants provided examples of adaptation planning and organisational change influenced by network participation, progress towards implementation was often constrained by wider factors such as organisational capacity, resources, competing priorities and senior leadership support.

Forming and growing networks

Evidence suggested that the Programme had made a significant contribution to the formation and growth of adaptation-focused networks within the public sector. Creation of a formal private sector network was at an earlier stage, therefore there was less evidence on this aspect of the Programme. Formal third sector networks exist outside the Programme (e.g. National Network of Climate Action Hubs), but evidence suggest that the Programme has contributed to informal networking opportunities.

The strongest evidence for contribution to networks related to PSCAN, which was established through the Programme in 2019 and had grown to 76 active members by June 2026, compared to 50 members in 2023/24. Participants reported that membership had broadened over time, both in terms of the organisations represented and the range of professional roles involved. Biannual meeting attendance varied: May 2024 – 77 attendees; September 2024 – 85; May 2025 – 56; October 2025 – 53; May 2026 – 65.

It was noted that attendance at monthly meetings also varied, with organisations typically dropping in depending on the topic or their capacity at that time. There was a suggestion that attendance at the monthly meetings could be improved if the Programme varied meeting days and times. Some stakeholders also felt PSCAN was most relevant to organisations and individuals with significant physical assets and estates responsibilities (as opposed to organisations in rented properties or staff with externally focused roles), or organisations with dedicated staff who could focus on adaptation. This suggests that the Programme could review its communication to potential members about the benefits of participation and time and resource commitment needed. There were also mixed views on the value of PSCAN according to what stage organisations are at in their adaptation journey (discussed in the next section).

Some participants reflected that they were aware of other public sector organisations that were not network members but might benefit if approached directly through the Programme. However, programme management stakeholders noted that new memberships were limited to 10 per year, and this was thought to be beneficial for maintaining levels of engagement among existing members. One PSCAN member also shared a concern about individuals not feeling as comfortable to share experiences in a larger group.

Another example of the Programme's role in supporting networks was in the development of the Climate Ready Infrastructure Scotland Forum (CRIS) in 2024. CRIS was described as instrumental in bringing infrastructure organisations together around a shared adaptation agenda and creating this platform for ongoing dialogue and knowledge sharing. CRIS had 26 members in 2025/26. The Forum had supported work programmes on adaptation action which is discussed below.

Evidence of formal network growth beyond the public sector was more limited. During the evaluation period the Programme had begun developing the Private Sector Leaders Adaptation Network (PSLAN) following a period of scoping and engagement activity, although some private sector organisations were already engaged in networks via CRIS. A roundtable discussion for PSLAN had engaged 26 participants. As highlighted in the previous chapter, stakeholders recognised that it was often difficult to reach SMEs with limited capacity who are juggling competing priorities. Participants suggested that continued engagement via trusted intermediaries (trade bodies and business advisors) remained the best way to reach SMEs, as well as framing adaptation in terms of business resilience.

For communities and third sector organisations, the Programme supported the existing National Network of Climate Action Hubs by delivering webinars, presenting at Hub events, and working directly with some Hubs. Participants noted that the impact of work with the Hubs depended on their capacity to engage with the Programme. The Programme’s direct work with Hubs appeared to have had the greatest impact. For example, delivering a ‘train the trainer’ session to one Hub was cited a successful example of ways of working to upskill local staff to further increase adaptation capacity locally.

“It started out being something where [the Hub] were going to get local groups together and then we were going to go and do the Climate Adaptation Routemap training and then there would be an ongoing process of engagement there. But what it actually ended up turning into was us adapting our training to kind of turn it into train the trainer training. We went down to [the Hub], delivered this really intensive two or three days worth of training with their team to allow them to then deliver the training themselves to other local community groups […] It was a really great change from something that was quite passive into something that was actually really active and dynamic.” (Programme delivery stakeholder)

Alongside formal networks, the Programme delivered or supported a range of events, resource launches and training sessions for public bodies, private sector and the third sector. For example, the Programme delivered an adaptation event for the forestry sector, presented at third sector conferences, provided regional adaptation investment plan training to over 50 participants, and ran a skills session delivered jointly with SSN. These types of activities were frequently mentioned by participants as valuable opportunities to meet peers and establish new professional relationships. Some participants described following up with individuals after meeting at events, to arrange meetings and share resources.

“I've had meetings after doing presentations, where people have contacted me to say, ‘can we catch up? I'd like to learn more about how you did this, this and this.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Some stakeholders reported that chief executives and other senior leaders had attended Programme events, although this was not yet perceived to be widespread. It was unclear whether the Programme had broadened reach to senior leaders of organisations that were less engaged on adaptation. There was recognition of the importance of Scottish Government input to reaching senior leaders. Participants felt senior stakeholders had benefitted from an event hosted by Scottish Government which involved completing the Leaders’ Climate Adaptation Checklist, developed through the Programme in collaboration with SSN. This event was valued as an opportunity for individuals to network and share information, and generate some excitement about work happening in this space.

Increased knowledge and understanding

There was strong evidence that the Programme's networks and events had increased participants' knowledge and understanding of climate adaptation. Evidence from the public sector was most prominent among interviewees but similar themes emerged across private sector and third sector stakeholders.

Stakeholders frequently described PSCAN as a valuable mechanism for learning about adaptation, sharing experiences and developing a stronger understanding of how adaptation can be implemented in practice.

“Practitioners meet together, share areas of good practice, we learn, we engage, we develop the frameworks, we support each other with assessments, actively share knowledge and participate in national evaluations or development of tools or lots and lots of different things. So it's a fantastic support network for Scottish local authorities.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Hearing how other organisations had approached adaptation planning, undertaken risk assessments or delivered projects helped participants understand what adaptation looks like in practice and identify approaches that could be applied within their own organisations. Events focused on the use of Programme tools and resources were particularly valuable for building individuals’ confidence to use these themselves.

Several stakeholders reported that networks provided access to knowledge and expertise that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain. This was particularly important for individuals working alone in their organisation on adaptation issues or within small teams.

“As a single officer... you don't get to watch other people practising. So actually speaking to people who've said, ‘oh, we took this approach' or ‘we tried that', you think, ‘of course, why didn't I think of that?' ... That's kind of an extra power, really.” (Public sector stakeholder)

“We have a contact list so we can actually contact each other, which was helpful for us doing a local climate impact profile. Last year we got some guidance from two local authorities and they actively helped us. Without that, I wouldn't have managed to do that, so that was super.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Programme networks and events appeared to be particularly valuable for organisations at an earlier stage of their adaptation journey. Several long-standing PSCAN members noted that, as their organisations became more established in adaptation planning and implementation, they had less need for introductory content. These individuals nevertheless continued to value opportunities to hear from other organisations, and receive feedback on their own activity, but they suggested that more advanced content focused on implementing adaptation actions would be welcomed.

The supportive culture fostered by Programme staff was identified as an important enabler of increased knowledge and understanding about adaptation. Participants consistently described networks and events as welcoming and non-judgemental environments where individuals with different levels of knowledge felt comfortable asking questions, seeking advice and discussing challenges.

“I think there's an ethos in Adaptation Scotland that, you know, ‘if you're interested, you're welcome’. So, if you want to do something on climate change adaptation, even if you have no idea what that ‘something’ is, or how to do it, you're welcome and you will be helped and guided.” (Delivery partner)

Participants also frequently described sharing learning with their colleagues and wider professional networks. Stakeholders from membership organisations and trade bodies reported that increased understanding of adaptation enabled them to engage more effectively with their members and provide better-informed advice and support.

Driving adaptation action

There was emerging evidence that the Programme's networks and events had enabled participants across sectors to take greater ownership of adaptation activity and play a more active role in driving adaptation within their organisations or sector.

It was difficult to attribute action solely to networks or events, but a number of participants described taking forward adaptation activities that they felt were influenced or enabled through the Programme. For example, one participant reflected that involvement in Programme activities had prompted them to undertake a climate change risk assessment that may not otherwise have happened.

“There's no question that without being involved with the Programme, it wouldn't have prompted me to do my own climate change risk assessment.” (Private sector stakeholder)

A key mechanism through which PSCAN supports action is the Adaptation Capability Framework. Members are required to assess and benchmark their organisation's progress against the framework. Public sector stakeholders reported that the network provided practical support throughout this process, enabling them to seek advice from peers, learn from organisations that had already completed assessments and identify actions to strengthen their own organisational approach.

Some participants reflected that, prior to engaging with the Programme, they would not have felt sufficiently knowledgeable or confident to influence discussions about adaptation planning or investment decisions. Several participants described using examples shared through Programme networks and events to make the case for adaptation internally. Seeing how similar organisations had successfully addressed adaptation challenges helped participants demonstrate the feasibility of adaptation measures within their own organisational contexts.

“[Another organisation] did a series of retrofits to their estate [...] and that gave me some ideas about just kind of cheap and cheerful things that you can do to prevent overheating... It just gives me more stuff to have in my pocket to sort of say, actually, look, [that organisation] has done this. So yes, huge confidence boost.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Several stakeholders also highlighted that regular Programme meetings and events provided ongoing reminder to consider climate risks and adaptation actions alongside competing organisational priorities.

“There's a lot of other things demanding time and resource, so I think having the regular monthly calls and the biannual events encourages you to stick with it... it does keep it to the fore, which is quite important.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Beyond individual organisations, there was some evidence that networks were supporting collective action on adaptation. CRIS forum had commissioned work to assess the impacts of Storm Éowyn on infrastructure systems and was developing plans for further assessments of climate risk interdependencies across infrastructure providers. Participants suggested that this work had the potential to influence adaptation planning both within individual organisations and at a wider system level.

While there was strong evidence that the Programme had increased understanding and confidence around adaptation, stakeholders consistently reported that these outcomes did not automatically translate into action. The main barriers identified sat outside the Programme's control and included:

• Competing priorities: participants highlighted that adaptation was not always viewed as an immediate organisational priority, particularly among the private sector.
• Limited staff capacity and resources: participants across the public, private and third sectors described adaptation as competing with other organisational priorities for limited staff time and resources.
• Lack of funding: financial constraints were frequently identified as a barrier to action. Several stakeholders felt they had the knowledge and confidence to act but lacked the resources needed to deliver projects.

Networks did not appear to have made a significant contribution to addressing these barriers. While the Programme had also offered specialist training on adaptation finance, and contributed to research activities to explore barriers to accessing private finance, this remained a challenge.

Participants consistently highlighted the importance of senior leadership support in translating increased knowledge and confidence into action. Many noted that action ultimately depends on decision-makers with responsibility for budgets, assets and strategic priorities. It was therefore suggested that greater participation from senior leaders would strengthen the ability of Programme networks to convert increased engagement into action. This was increasingly recognised by Programme management stakeholders and was reflected in events and resources discussed earlier in this section.

Contribution Claim 2: Developing effective adaptation approaches

The Adaptation Scotland Programme has contributed to the development of effective approaches to support fair, just and sustainable adaptation.

The Programme engages with specialists (i.e. practitioners, researchers, institutions and policy teams) to increase understanding of what effective adaptation looks like, connecting specialists and networks to encourage cross-sector collaboration and (co-) develop tools and resources. These tools and resources are used by public sector bodies, communities and businesses to develop effective approaches for tackling adaptation challenges which support a fair, just and sustainable adaptation

This contribution claim relates to the outcomes set out in the Theory of Change that ‘Cross sector collaborations are developing approaches that support fair, just and sustainable adaptation’ and ‘Individuals, communities, and organisations are developing effective approaches to tackling adaptation challenges across finance, land and climate justice’.

Overall assessment of contribution

Evidence collected through the evaluation indicated that the Programme had contributed to the development of effective adaptation approaches through engagement with specialists and the collaborative development of tools and resources. There was strong and consistent evidence that Programme resources had been used across the public, private and third sectors. Stakeholders generally viewed resources as accessible, practical and tailored to the needs of different audiences.

Evidence of adaptation action was less consistent. Participants provided examples of resources informing risk assessments, adaptation planning and training activities. However, progress towards implementation was often constrained by wider factors such as organisational capacity, funding constraints and competing priorities.

Engaging with specialists

Evidence showed that the Programme had engaged with a range of specialists, including delivery partners, subject matter experts and research organisations. The key reasons for this were to develop tools and resources, contribute to or commission research, and deliver Programme activities.

MI showed that during 2025/26 the Programme contributed to ten research and knowledge-sharing projects. These included work with ClimateXChange on a climate resilient economy and adaptation targets, collaboration with the Met Office Local Authority Climate Service, contributions to evidence gathering for the Fourth Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA4), development of the CRIS Forum, and two Open Climate Impacts Modelling Framework (OpenCLIM) showcase events delivered with the Tyndall Centre.

The Programme had also commissioned external specialists to deliver activity where expertise was not available in-house. For example, Climate Springboard was commissioned to deliver business training and scoping work to inform development of a private sector network, while Paul Watkiss Associates delivered training focused on adaptation investment and finance. Stakeholders reported that this specialist input was valuable and helped increase understanding of adaptation issues among participants.

Developing tools and resources

MI showed that resources developed or updated during the evaluation period included sector-specific guidance and tools for public bodies (e.g. Adaptation Capability Framework), businesses (e.g. SME climate resilience checklist), and communities (e.g. Community Climate Adaptation Routemap), alongside resources focused on adaptation finance, land use adaptation and climate hazards in the workplace.

There was strong evidence that the Programme took a collaborative approach to developing tools and resources. Evidence suggested that development of effective resources was much more reliant on Verture staff expertise and engagement with subject matter experts than engagement with academic specialists. For example, when developing resources for the social care sector, the Programme worked with Public Health Scotland, NHS representatives and social care providers. Similarly, trade bodies were involved in developing resources for the horticulture, wholesale and whisky sectors.

A key feature of the Programme’s approach was the use of workshops to build participants’ understanding of adaptation and gather feedback. Participants involved in co-creating resources were positive about the process, noting that the Programme actively sought feedback, incorporated suggestions and recognised stakeholder contributions. Participants consistently reported that co-design helped to ensure resources were practical and tailored to the needs of specific audiences.

“There was an initial planning meeting, obviously working together on targeting the content, then presenting this at [a] workshop with members […] The Adaptation Scotland team [then] went away and started to draft this resource and then we sort of worked together to just tweak it to ensure that it was as targeted to the audience as we could. So it was very efficient, fantastic, and it was also a really good experience.” (Private sector stakeholder)

Participants also reflected that the co-design process had helped improve understanding of adaptation issues and begin to take action. In the case of the social care adaptation resource, it was noted that some organisations had begun using SEPA Flood Maps to identify people at risk even before the final resource had been published.

There was also evidence that the Programme contributed to the development of tools and resources produced by other organisations. For example, PSCAN members provided feedback on the ScotClimATE tool led by ClimateXChange. Their feedback helped shape how the tool was pitched to potential users and the range of climate scenarios included. The Programme also hosts this tool on its website.

The Programme was felt to have strong links to the Met Office, whose climate data underpinned a number of resources (such as the Climate Change Projections Summary for Scotland, and the abovementioned ScotClimATE tool). Met Office staff had attended PSCAN meetings to highlight available data and also to share their own tools and resources. Participants particularly valued that the Programme made Scotland specific Met Office data more easily accessible to them via the Adaptation Scotland website, providing a ‘one stop shop’ that they could benefit from.

Participants were generally very complimentary about Programme tools and resources. They were described as beginner friendly, practical and accessible. Resources were also considered useful in helping translate complex climate and adaptation issues into forms that could be understood and applied by different audiences

Using tools and resources for effective adaptation

There was strong evidence that the Programme’s tools and resources were being used by the public sector, private sector and third sector to support adaptation planning. MI showed widespread uptake of several resources across different audiences.

Public sector participants reported using the Climate Risk Assessment Tool, Adaptation Capability Framework and Climate Adaptation Benchmarking Assessment to assess organisational risks, identify priorities and monitor progress. These activities had helped organisations create adaptation plans or ensure adaptation was more formally embedded within existing plans. Some organisations had identified a need for staff training, which led to the creation of internal training modules. In some cases, adaptation assessments also led to the creation of internal working groups, helping improve coordination between departments and increase visibility of adaptation among senior leadership. MI showed that the Adaptation Capability Framework was viewed or downloaded over 5,000 times by June 2026.

There was also evidence that Programme resources had supported organisations to develop further resources of their own. For example, existing Programme materials had been used as the basis for developing a Heritage Tourism Adaptation Manual.

Programme resources had been widely used for training and capacity-building activities. Participants reported using climate projections, key impacts of climate change resources and risk assessment tools in staff training, leadership workshops and stakeholder engagement activities. Several participants welcomed that the resources enabled non-specialists to facilitate conversations about adaptation.

“We've been able to run these workshops and I'm not a climate specialist, but because of the way the tools and the [initial training] workshop was run, it was very easy for us to take that and model it.” (Private sector stakeholder)

Within communities, resources such as the Community Climate Adaptation Routemap and Climate Ready Places were being used by Climate Action Hubs, regional adaptation partnerships and other bodies to support climate literacy. Participants described using visual resources, case studies and prompts to help communities identify local climate risks and consider potential responses. MI showed the Routemap had been viewed or downloaded more than 2,100 times by June 2026. There was evidence that adaptation considerations had subsequently been incorporated into local place plans and grant programmes.

"We used some of the Adaptation Scotland material, first of all, in communicating to the grant-holders the different impacts you might think about: security of your food supply, energy, things like that. We encourage the community groups to go and look at that, to think about what climate impacts they may or may not have noticed. We utilised the Adaptation Routemap as a prompt for structuring the conversations and then we also encouraged at the workshops utilising the resources of the adapted and the un-adapted places to get people's understanding about potential ways that they could think about improving their local space to make it climate ready for the future." (Third sector stakeholder)

Beyond planning and developing further resources, there was some emerging evidence that use of tools and resources had contributed to practical adaptation action. The strongest examples came from participants involved in infrastructure projects who reported that risk assessments had supported them to identify and respond to potential flood and heat risks. However, evidence was generally stronger for influencing understanding, planning and organisational capacity than for demonstrating implementation of adaptation actions or longer-term outcomes.

Fair, just and sustainable adaptation

The Programme was expected to contribute to tackling adaptation challenges across finance, land and climate justice. MI showed development of resources in these areas, including guidance on adaptation finance, land use adaptation and community adaptation. Climate justice issues are discussed further under Contribution Claim 5.

Finance was considered a challenging area with high uncertainty, but participants felt the Programme had begun to build capacity through publication of adaptation finance resources and investment training, which was generally well received. Land management was also described as a challenging area. Participants highlighted the complexity of land ownership and the need for adaptation issues to be considered more broadly than solely through Programme activity. However, there were examples of regional projects focused on reducing flood risk and supporting nature restoration. MI showed that a land use webinar organised through the Programme attracted more than 200 registrations and over 100 attendees, indicating some interest in this area.

Factors affecting delivery or adaptation action

While there was strong evidence that the Programme had increased understanding and confidence around adaptation, stakeholders consistently reported that these outcomes did not automatically translate into action.

The main barriers identified sat outside the Programme’s control and included competing organisational priorities, limited staff capacity and resources, and lack of funding. Several stakeholders felt they had the knowledge and confidence to act but lacked the time or financial resources needed to deliver adaptation projects.

“The fact that we've not taken as much action as others have is not a reflection on anything to do with the tools. It's just, you know, purely sort of resource constraints.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Participants not actively engaged with the Programme also suggested that their organisation would benefit from additional support to understand how best to use tools and resources. For example, by meeting directly with organisations to show them how to use materials.

“You can send me tools, but if I don't know how. How to work them and I don't know the background, so then I'm going to need somebody to tell me how to do that again.” (Third/community sector stakeholder)

More broadly, participants identified opportunities to strengthen future resources through additional case studies, more accessible formats and further support for users of existing tools. However, these suggestions were generally made in the context of an already positive assessment of the quality and usefulness of Programme resources. These included:

• More case study content: participants requested more case studies, particularly examples aimed at community groups and smaller organisations. There was interest in more practical examples of everyday adaptation actions, as well as more information on the process behind successful projects, including challenges encountered and lessons learned.
• More shareable materials: some participants working with communities, would welcome content such as social media posts, blogs, newsletters and introductory materials that could be shared more easily with wider audiences.
• Public Sector Climate Adaptation Capability Framework (ACF) and Benchmarking tool: it was suggested that usage could be improved if the Programme offered to provide feedback on assessments, and if a stronger link was made between the tool and mandatory reporting requirements. There was also a desire for a lighter touch version of the tool for smaller organisations and/or with limited staff time.
• Fairness, justice and equity: some participants suggested that tools and resources could include prompts to help users consider fairness, justice and equity when planning adaptation actions. However, there was also a view that clearer national guidance on what a just transition means in practice would be needed to support action in this area.
• Accessible formats: participants suggested developing short videos and podcasts to make key adaptation messages easier to digest and share.
• Use of artificial intelligence (AI): some stakeholders felt it would be helpful to provide more guidance on how to use AI to support use of existing tools and resources, or in the interpretation of climate data and exploration of potential impacts of severe weather events.

Contribution Claim 3: Place-based adaptation

The Adaptation Scotland Programme has contributed to developing place-based initiatives that drive effective adaptation action across cities, regions and localities, aligned with the interests and needs of communities.

Adaptation Scotland has embedded the Place Principle into the foundation of the Programme. The Programme has helped to establish, expand and support regional adaptation partnerships to enable decisions on place-based approaches. This has led to the design and delivery of initiatives that drive effective adaptation action based on the interests and needs of communities.

This contribution claim relates to the outcome set out in the Theory of Change that ‘Place-based initiatives are driving effective adaptation actions across cities, regions and localities, and sharing their learning and resources, aligned with the interests and needs of communities’.

Overall assessment of contribution

Evidence collected through the evaluation indicated that the Programme has contributed to the development of place-based initiatives by supporting the creation and early development of seven regional adaptation partnerships (or Climate Ready Regions) during this contract period. The Programme’s support was consistently viewed by stakeholders as essential to the formation and progress of these partnerships to date, with its role in convening key partners, providing strategic advice and advocacy support, and enabling knowledge exchange between partnerships highlighted as particularly valuable contributions.

The partnerships were generally viewed as being at an “embryonic” stage, limiting the extent to which adaptation action had been taken across regions. However, there was evidence of important foundational activity, including engaging partners, developing strategy documents and plans, and strengthening networks for collaboration and knowledge sharing. Evidence that these activities were aligned with community interests and needs was less consistent, although there were examples of community engagement and consideration of local priorities in some regions.

Embedding the Place Principle

MI highlighted the Programme’s commitment to supporting place-based initiatives guided by the Place Principle, with regional adaptation partnerships considered a key mechanism for enabling place-based adaptation action in Scotland. Programme management staff emphasised that their approach follows a core principle of having “no blueprint”, allowing local partners to determine how partnerships are formed in ways that best reflect local context and need.

While stakeholders did not explicitly refer to the Place Principle, regional partnerships were consistently viewed as important structures for developing locally led and collaborative approaches to adaptation. Stakeholders highlighted that climate risks, priorities and capacities differ across Scotland and felt that the Programme had helped them translate the national adaptation agenda into approaches that reflected regional circumstances.

“All the region approaches are different. And I like the fact that we've had so much support from Adaptation Scotland. However, we have developed our own relevant partnership. It's not like we've been steered or forced down a certain route.” (Public sector stakeholder)

Establishing, supporting and expanding regional adaptation partnerships

MI indicates that, as of May 2026, the Programme had supported existing partnerships in the Outer Hebrides and Tayside, alongside the development of new partnerships in Forth Valley, Argyll and Bute, and Dumfries and Galloway. In 2025/26, 25 communities were reported to have used the route map through these partnerships, an increase from previous years.

Stakeholders consistently highlighted the Programme’s role in supporting the development of regional adaptation partnerships. This included coordinating workshops and initial meetings, supporting the development of strategies and business cases, and helping stakeholders access relevant evidence and expertise. For some, the partnerships would have been “almost impossible” to establish without this support, particularly in the early stages.

The Programme was also seen as important in maintaining momentum as partnerships developed. Stakeholders highlighted support with evidence gathering, sharing tools and good practice from other regions, and creating opportunities to network through events such as the Climate Ready Regions annual gathering. Relationships with Programme staff were viewed positively, with stakeholders valuing both their expertise and responsiveness to local needs. MI suggest growing engagement, with 101 attendees at the 2026 gathering (up from 68 in 2025).

“We've tended to have a really positive relationship and they've been really open to hearing our problems about some of the things not landing very well in rural areas.” (Third sector stakeholder)

Programme delivery staff noted that the number of regional partnerships is expected to reach 12 by the end of 2026, three years ahead of the target set out in SNAP3. Stakeholders felt that events and peer learning opportunities organised through the Programme had helped generate increasing interest in the regional adaptation partnership model among other regions. MI supports this, showing increasing attendance at the annual gathering and growing engagement with Climate Ready Regions online resources on the Programme’s website.

Enabling regional decision-making

There was some evidence that the regional adaptation partnership model has increased awareness of the value of regional and cross-sector approaches to adaptation. Stakeholders described a growing recognition that adaptation requires collaboration across local authorities, public bodies, businesses, communities and the third sector rather than being led by a single organisation or team.

Evidence of regional decision-making was strongest among more established partnerships that had progressed beyond the initial planning stage. Participants described consultations, workshops and working groups that brought together a range of organisations and helped develop a shared understanding of regional adaptation priorities. Stakeholders felt these activities had strengthened relationships and encouraged greater collective ownership of future adaptation plans.

However, evidence in this area was mixed. Some partnerships remained at an early stage and had not yet developed strong collaborative arrangements, while stakeholders highlighted challenges engaging some key partners and sectors. Communities and businesses were also reported to be more difficult to engage directly through the partnership model, particularly where capacity and resources were limited. Indeed, one Climate Hub representative who had not engaged with the Programme was interested in joining a regional partnership but lacked the capacity to initiate this themselves. They felt the Programme needed to engage them directly for this to happen.

Driving effective adaptation action

Most regional adaptation partnerships covered by this evaluation were considered to be at an early or “embryonic” stage. As a result, evidence of adaptation action was focused primarily on planning and preparation rather than implementation. Activities included developing business cases, climate risk and vulnerability assessments, regional action plans, climate change strategies and economic assessments.

MI indicated that one partnership had entered an early delivery phase during 2025/26. Activities included a combined climate risk and vulnerability assessment, the creation of a nature-based solutions resource, and the scoping of nature-based solutions projects.

Stakeholders consistently identified the Programme’s contribution as helping partnerships move towards action by convening partners, facilitating collaboration, supporting the development of plans and assessments, and sharing learning from other regions. For several stakeholders, the Programme acted as an important “enabler” in building and sustaining momentum.

“It would be fair to say we wouldn't have a successful partnership without Adaptation Scotland and Verture's involvement in that.” (Private sector stakeholder)

Despite this progress, stakeholders identified a range of barriers to implementation, including delays in funding decisions, limited capacity, competing organisational priorities, and concerns about overlap with existing partnerships and networks. Some participants questioned whether current plans would translate into action given wider resource constraints. These were not considered to be within the Programme’s control.

Alignment with community needs and interests

There is some evidence that adaptation approaches being developed through regional partnerships are aligned with community needs and interests. Stakeholders described community engagement activities undertaken as part of regional planning, including consultation workshops, community communications activities and consideration of the needs of specific groups. Future plans included work on vulnerability assessments and targeted engagement with communities affected by climate risks.

The Programme contributed to this activity through resources such as local climate profiles, Gaelic-language materials and support in connecting partnerships with existing community forums. Stakeholders felt these resources had helped strengthen regional engagement.

However, evidence of alignment with community needs was not consistent across partnerships. In some cases, organisations already had strong relationships with communities independently of the Programme. In others, particularly across larger rural areas, barriers such as geography, transport links and limited organisational capacity made community engagement more challenging.

Contribution Claim 4: Engagement in adaptation policy

The Adaptation Scotland Programme has contributed to an increase in knowledge, engagement and capacity in shaping and delivering adaptation policy and action in Scotland.

Adaptation Scotland regularly shares the work and findings of the Programme, and insights from wider relevant adaptation work, to its stakeholders. More stakeholders are engaging with the Programme to shape and deliver adaptation policy and action in Scotland. Stakeholders have a greater capacity and feel more empowered to shape and deliver policy and action in Scotland.

This contribution claim relates to the outcomes set out in the Theory of Change that ‘People are increasingly engaged in shaping adaptation policy and action in Scotland’ and ‘Organisations, people and places are equipped with the knowledge to help deliver change’.

Overall assessment of contribution

Evidence collected through the evaluation indicated that the Programme had contributed to increased knowledge, engagement and capacity in shaping and delivering adaptation policy and action in Scotland. Stakeholders valued the Programme's role in knowledge sharing, translating complex policy and technical information, and creating opportunities for policy engagement through networks, consultations and events. Stakeholders frequently described being better informed about adaptation issues.

However, evidence that the Programme had directly influenced policy decisions or increased the embedding of adaptation across policy areas was less consistent. The Programme's contribution was generally viewed as supporting and informing policy development rather than directly shaping policy outcomes.

Sharing Programme work and wider insights

Evidence showed that the Programme had been generally effective in sharing its work and findings, as well as insights from wider relevant work. This had helped increase understanding of adaptation and build confidence to engage in adaptation policy and delivery, with further evidence on these impacts provided later in this contribution claim (see sections under Increased engagement with the Programme and Capacity and engagement).

The Programme shared information through its website, quarterly newsletter, network meetings, and at events and workshops. Information shared included case studies, tools and resources, research and policy announcements. MI found that the Programme also shares information via other networks including: Scottish Communities Climate Action Network, Climate Action Hubs, Ashden Adaptation Network, MACC Hub, Development Trusts Association Scotland, SSN, and the Scottish Flood Forum.

Participants commonly reported receiving information through PSCAN meetings, events, and newsletters. The Programme took different approaches to engaging with different audiences. For example, responding to learning that the most effective way to reach time-pressured businesses had been via the enterprise agencies or trade bodies. Participants were generally positive about the quality of Programme communications and described resources as clear, accessible and well designed.

Although some stakeholders found the website difficult to navigate because of the amount of content available, this was a relatively minor issue compared with the overall positive perception of Programme communications.

Participants felt that one of the Programme's key strengths was translating academic research, climate data and policy developments into practical messages for decision-makers, practitioners and communities.

“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.” (Programme delivery stakeholder)

“A lot of resources [are] either very heavily technical or they are coming from a very heavily green background, whereas I think the Adaptation ones are more about what makes our communities liveable, what makes nice places, what helps us think about how we prepare, you know, and it links all those different bits so it's not just about transport, it's about green space, it's about agriculture, it ties the whole lot together […] with that real focus on climate change, on adaptation, what we can all do, but making it feel real and kind of accessible to people.” (Third/community sector stakeholder)

Another strength identified by participants was the Programme's ability to share learning. Stakeholders described Adaptation Scotland as acting as a conduit through which local experiences, innovations and lessons learned could be shared more widely. For example, the Programme had shared materials developed by more mature regional adaptation partnerships, such as invitations to tender, business cases and risk assessments, allowing newer partnerships to build on existing work rather than starting from scratch. Several participants also highlighted that information sharing operated as a “two-way street”, with local experiences and feedback feeding into wider national adaptation discussions

Participants emphasised the credibility and authority associated with the Programme's communications and resources. Several stakeholders explained that being able to draw on evidence, guidance and tools produced by an independent and trusted organisation strengthened their ability to make the case for adaptation action within their own organisations.

Despite these strengths, participants questioned how effectively the Programme reached organisations and sectors that were less engaged on adaptation. Particular challenges were highlighted in reaching SMEs, organisations without dedicated climate staff, some urban communities and groups experiencing poverty. It was suggested that working through trusted intermediaries and existing networks remained the most effective approach for engaging these audiences. Participants also noted that adaptation remains a less familiar concept than climate mitigation, creating wider communication challenges beyond the Programme itself.

Suggestions for improvement focused on providing more accessible and shareable content for community organisations, providing more regular updates on the latest climate data, developing more communications aimed at senior decision-makers. There was also a view that the Scottish Government could play a stronger role in promoting the work of the Programme across government, in order to reach a wider audience. It noted that the Programme had recently engaged with certain policy teams on developing resources (such as housing and land planning) but that there could be stronger collaboration in future to help tackle known challenges and widen impact.

“The one thing I put down for improvement is probably more at the Scottish Government level in terms of how they communicate what's going on within Adaptation Scotland [...] more engagement with other departments would be very helpful to increase the impact of this work." (Programme delivery stakeholder)

Finally, stakeholders not currently engaged with the Programme suggested that a more direct and proactive approach to outreach could help raise awareness of what Adaptation Scotland can offer to organisations and their stakeholders.

Increased engagement with the Programme

Evidence found that the Programme provided a range of opportunities for stakeholders to engage in adaptation policy and action. Annual reports indicated engagement across a broad range of Scottish Government policy areas, including biodiversity, public health, private finance, public finance, land, nature, planning, economic development, infrastructure and transport. MI further indicated increased engagement with Programme communications (see the Process chapter for details).

Programme engagement with national policy areas typically involved: discussions at the Policy Forum to identify priority areas for action, participation in consultations, working groups and developing resources. Through its work with local authorities, regional partnerships, public bodies and community organisations, Adaptation Scotland was viewed as well positioned to gather practical insights from delivery partners and communicate these to policy teams.

At the local level, several public sector participants highlighted PSCAN's role in helping them stay informed about emerging policy developments, consultations and adaptation activity elsewhere in Scotland. Some participants noted that they had the opportunity to directly engage with Scottish Government policy teams at Programme events and there was a desire for more of these opportunities.

"I would like a bit more Scottish Government engagement...I'd like them to actually stay and take questions. And I would also like the civil servants. More civil servants in the room... they need to hear sort of the struggles of your actual councils to try and implement some of this stuff." (Public sector stakeholder)

The strongest evidence for the Programme's contribution to policy engagement was in relation to the development of SNAP3. Participants described the Programme as playing a central role in designing and facilitating SNAP3 engagement activities, using its networks to engage communities that Scottish Government would otherwise have struggled to reach.

However, views on the effectiveness of the Programme's policy support were mixed. While many participants highlighted its role in supporting engagement and providing expertise, others felt there was scope for more proactive engagement across a wider range of policy areas and greater use of learning from communities, businesses and regional partnerships to inform policy development. Engagement with the Climate Action Hubs was highlighted as a key for mechanism for supporting policy action in future. Although it was noted that increased community engagement would need to be managed carefully, recognising perceived consultation fatigue in some areas.

Capacity and empowerment to shape and deliver policy and action

Evidence that stakeholders had greater capacity to shape and deliver adaptation policy builds on findings presented under Contribution Claims 1 and 2. Through participation in networks and events, and through the use of Programme tools and resources, participants widely reported a stronger understanding of adaptation issues and greater confidence to take adaptation activity forward within their organisations.

Stakeholders generally considered policy support to be most effective when Adaptation Scotland combined policy expertise with insights from delivery on the ground. Its engagement with practitioners, public bodies, regional partnerships and community organisations had enabled the Programme to bring practical experience into policy discussions, while translating policy developments into actionable guidance.

Participants highlighted some examples where the Programme had helped bring stakeholder perspectives into policy discussions. It was reported that evidence collected through the Programme during the SNAP3 consultation had led to an increased focus in the plan on young people, eco anxiety and coastal flooding. A community group who was very positive about their experience of engaging in the consultation, did, however, note that they would have liked to have been updated on how their contribution had been used.

Other examples of Programme input into policy discussions included , input into NHS adaptation planning, work on understanding barriers to private adaptation finance and encouraging Climate Action Hubs to consider adaptation alongside mitigation activities and helping Scottish Government understand how regional adaptation partnerships could be expanded.

“They’ve helped to shape the delivery [of regional adaptation partnerships]. It's not just that we've said, ‘we want to do this’, they've [Adaptation Scotland] actually had a key role in terms of shaping, ‘well, how would you go about delivering that?’ […] Initially they would have been working with, I think it was two, maybe three partnerships and then we've scaled up to full national coverage. So then they can take that learning from how they've done it to advise us and how we would best take that forward." (Programme delivery stakeholder)

The Programme's credibility was identified as an important factor in building stakeholder capacity. Participants described Adaptation Scotland as a trusted source of advice whose resources and guidance could be used to support conversations with senior colleagues and decision-makers. This credibility helped stakeholders make the case for adaptation within their own organisations and provided confidence when proposing new approaches. Some organisations described drawing on Adaptation Scotland's knowledge of SNAP3 and wider adaptation policy to ensure alignment of their own plans with national priorities.

“It does feel like in the last 12 to 18 months there's been more of a shift towards climate adaptation looking at climate resilience. That certainly wouldn't have happened without the Adaptation Scotland programme or more of a policy sort of shift to focus on adaptation. A good example of that would be when SNAP3, the latest adaptation Scottish National Adaptation Plan came out. There are specific asks of [business networks] to do specific jobs tasks, roles for example. So again the Adaptation Scotland network is helping support us to deliver on those.” (Private sector stakeholder)

Despite these positive findings, evidence of participants becoming empowered to directly shape policy was less consistent than evidence relating to knowledge and engagement. While participants pointed to examples of policy influence, many found it difficult to clearly articulate how the Programme had contributed to policy decisions around adaptation action. Participants generally viewed the Programme's role as enabling and informing policy development rather than directly shaping policy decisions.

Contribution Claim 5: Vulnerable groups

The Adaptation Scotland Programme has contributed to bettering the value of and acting upon the views of the most vulnerable to climate change at both the national and local level.

The Programme has worked with community and third sector organisations to engage groups most vulnerable to climate change and connect them to the networks. Groups most vulnerable to climate change are empowered to share their views and input to effective adaptation resources. Their views are valued and acted upon in adaptation actions at the local and national level.

This contribution claim relates to the short- and medium-term outcomes set out in the Theory of Change that the ‘Programme established networks with leaders across all areas of society becoming more engaged with climate adaptation issue’s and that ‘effective tools, resources and processes are developed used’. These outcomes relate to the long-term outcome that ‘the views of those most vulnerable to climate change are valued and acted upon’.

Overall assessment of contribution

Evidence collected through the evaluation indicates that, overall, the Programme had contributed to ensuring that the views and experiences of vulnerable groups are considered within discussions about adaptation, including resource development and planning processes. Evidence was strongest in relation to engagement activity and increasing participating organisations’ consideration of fairness, justice and equity.

There was also evidence that perspectives gathered through Programme-supported engagement informed national adaptation planning processes, including the development of SNAP3. However, evidence demonstrating how these perspectives influenced policy or delivery decisions was more limited, and stakeholders highlighted a lack of visibility regarding how consultation inputs influenced final outcomes.

Engagement with groups most vulnerable to climate change

For the purposes of this contribution claim, groups considered particularly vulnerable to climate change were those identified in SNAP3, including island, rural and coastal communities, disabled people, people on low incomes and other groups facing additional barriers to adaptation.

There was evidence from MI and stakeholder interviews that the Adaptation Scotland Programme has worked with a range of community and third sector organisations to engage groups most vulnerable to climate change. This has included empowering vulnerable groups to them to share their views and input in the development of effective adaptation resources. Examples of vulnerable groups that the Programme has engaged with in this way include:

• Island, rural and coastal communities, through support for Climate Action Hubs, regional adaptation partnerships, third sector organisations and communities. MI indicates that, in 2023/24, the Programme delivered 18 workshops for community and third sector organisations, supporting more than 600 people from climate-vulnerable communities to take locally led adaptation action, and facilitated five Climate Action Hub workshops involving over 100 participants as part of the SNAP3 consultation process. In 2024/25, the Programme engaged 120 community members and 14 island communities through 36 workshops and events. Stakeholder interviews also highlighted examples of support tailored to local contexts, including the co-development of local climate profiles with a third sector organisation in a region with large rural, coastal and island areas.

“With developing local climate profiles for a number of key settlements within Argyll… it was really, really well received at community level because people could see they've actually provided information that goes right down to our little locality rather than just talking about big picture top-down stuff” (Third/community sector stakeholder)

• Disabled people, through engagement activities delivered in partnership with a disabled people-led organisation. The Programme collaborated with the organisation to co-deliver a workshop with 30-40 members as part of the consultation for SNAP3. Work was done by the Adaptation Scotland Programme, working closely with the Scottish Government, to ensure that the event was accessible to attendees, such as having an accessible venue and providing transport. These were felt to be important enablers of effective engagement, meeting the needs of those attending. It was also noted that the workshop materials had been tailored to be relevant to this audience, such as illustrating the issue of localised flooding with an example of Blue Badge parking, and that staff facilitated the discussion effectively rather than simply taking notes.

"I think the materials that were used … were very relevant to our members; they could see their lives reflected in there, in the impacts of climate change. They could see that thinking about their own homes, their own environment, their own local neighbourhoods, their access to green space, these things. I think the materials were able to make people think in a very personal way. Yeah, to put that in the context of the kind of a global problem… and it was good." (Third/community sector stakeholder)

• People from ethnic minority communities, through engagement with third/community sector organisations representing these groups. However, across monitoring information and stakeholder interviews, there was limited information on what this engagement involved, and no evidence regarding how this engagement was received by these groups or the impact of the engagement.

In other cases, the Programme had worked with community and third sector organisations to co-develop tools and resources that consider the needs of vulnerable groups. This included the co-development of resources for:

• People living in social housing, through the co-development of adaptation and retrofit resources with and for social housing providers. MI indicated that stakeholders responded positively to the draft Social Housing Retrofit Resource and provided feedback through housing-sector events, which was then used to refine the resource.
• People who are economically disadvantaged, including frontline and low paid workers and vulnerable socioeconomic groups, through the co-development of the Climate Hazards and Resilience in the Workplace tools and guidance. The resources were developed in partnership with the Scottish Trade Union movement, drawing upon the lived experience of trade union representatives.
• Gaelic speakers, through collaboration with one of the Climate Action Hubs to co-developing a Gaelic-version of the Community Climate Adaptation Routemap, published in 2024 and made available on the Adaptation Scotland website. The Routemap was described as a valuable tool for supporting engagement with communities who are often marginalised. Collectively, the evidence suggests that the Programme has engaged with several groups identified in SNAP3 as being particularly vulnerable to climate change, primarily through collaboration with community, third-sector, housing, health and social care organisations.

Programme management stakeholders suggested that an enabler to engaging with some groups vulnerable to climate change, such as including ethnic minority and disabled groups, had been to frame the impacts around what mattered to these communities. Instead of focusing on climate change generally, it was thought to be more effective to focus on access to green space, access to fresh fruit and vegetables, the cost of living, and being able to heat their homes.

However, Programme management stakeholders identified some groups that were harder for the Programme to engage with because they tend to be more dispersed, including people experiencing poverty, lower income communities, and traveller communities. Programme management stakeholders suggested that reaching these groups often requires trusted local relationships and sustained community engagement, which can be difficult to achieve where there is no established intermediary organisation or representative body.

“Where I think there's still loads more to do is where climate kind of intersects with class, and where we have groups who are underrepresented because they're from lower income groups, they're from communities that are more greatly affected by poverty, affected by cost of living and who also do not necessarily always have a kind of a special interest group who is looking out for them” (Programme management stakeholder)

There was some evidence that the Programme created opportunities for perspectives from vulnerable groups to be shared within adaptation networks, but limited evidence to suggest that this formed a core or systematic element of the Programme's approach. For example, a public sector stakeholder described a PSCAN session involving representatives from a disability organisation which helped participants better understand how climate change may affect disabled people and other vulnerable groups.

“I remember one of the [PSCAN] gatherings where they had representatives from [a Disabled People's Organisation] and they were really helpful actually, just to really understand the role of disabled people and vulnerable groups and how climate change impacts that they're sort of detrimentally affected by it and therefore what additional needs that they have. And that actually was really helpful because, you know, I think without that kind of information you don't fully appreciate it” (Public sector stakeholder)

Programme management stakeholders did not always share a common understanding of who should be considered most vulnerable to climate change. Stakeholders highlighted the diverse and overlapping nature of climate vulnerability and suggested that further work may be required to develop a more consistent understanding of which groups are most vulnerable and how best to support them.

Valuing and acting upon the views and experience of vulnerable groups

The evidence presented above suggests that the Programme engaged groups that may otherwise be underrepresented in climate adaptation discussions and tailored engagement approaches and resources to their needs and experiences.

There was some evidence that the Programme contributed to the views and experiences of vulnerable groups being reflected in adaptation resources, engagement activities and planning processes at both local and national levels.

Stakeholders highlighted activities such as workshops, consultations and resources with a strong social justice focus as mechanisms through which the voices and experiences of vulnerable groups were brought into adaptation discussions. For example, a programme management stakeholder described how work with the Climate Action Hubs was seen as key to communities, including those vulnerable to climate change, being able to feed in their views and feedback, to influence decision-making on adaptation.

At an organisational level, there was evidence from stakeholder interviews that engagement with the Programme increased organisations' consideration of the views and experiences of vulnerable groups within their own adaptation planning and activities. Stakeholders, particularly in the private sector, said that this meant considering fairness, justice and equity as part of their own adaptation approaches, while stakeholders in the public and third sectors were more likely to say that the Programme reaffirmed their existing approaches.

"In terms of our organisation, we have recently started to also look at how each of these areas all come together. So for equality, diversity, inclusion, linked to climate change impact. So that's absolutely something that we are now on as a result of the engagement that we've had with the programme” (Private sector stakeholder)

Stakeholders from all sectors attributed this to a range of Programme activities, including resources described as having a strong social justice focus, workshops, and events where the voices and experiences of groups such as young people and disabled people were shared. However, it was mentioned by public sector stakeholders that considering the views of vulnerable groups had not been the focus of PSCAN meetings.

The extent to which organisations’ valuing the perspectives of vulnerable groups had led to specific actions was less clear. One example was a private sector stakeholder discussing how to support vulnerable service users impacted by extreme weather conditions with public sector contractors, while another example was a public sector stakeholder utilising Programme resources to support engagement with a lower income community. Internal resourcing constraints were identified as a barrier to translating these considerations into action.

“We wanted to try and engage with a disengaged community about climate change and we used the Adaptation Scotland tools, particularly that very beautiful one, the [Community Climate Adaptation Routemap], and we blew that up as a big poster because not necessarily everyone was literate in some of the meetings and so having really strong visuals like that were very helpful” (Public sector stakeholder)

“We did talk with [our client] about the vulnerability of their [service users]... They did identify that the facility they were providing was for a very vulnerable members of the community and it was maybe something they should be putting bit more focus on." (Private sector stakeholder)

At a national level, there was also evidence that suggests that the views and experiences of vulnerable groups informed adaptation planning at a national level. In particular, the Programme’s involvement in the SNAP3 consultation was suggested as a key enabler of bringing these voices to policy makers. Stakeholders within the Scottish Government suggested that the Programme enabled the consultation to bring in perspectives that may not otherwise have been heard.

“[Adaptation Scotland] were able to … access different community groups, working with the community partners to facilitate those discussions so that we could reach those people who possibly wouldn't have responded to an online consultation… I can say that we definitely probably wouldn't have managed that alone as a team to have access to that many different kinds of stakeholders and different voices and in such a way that people wanted to participate. I think that helped us then think about the insights that would then go into the plan.” (Programme management stakeholder)

However, while there was evidence that vulnerable groups were engaged and their views contributed to SNAP3 consultation activity, there was more limited evidence regarding how these views and experiences are acted upon at a national level.

“I don't think we ever really got any specific feedback from the Government about, you know, ‘you said - we did’. I know there was a kind of analysis of all the consultation.” (Third/community sector stakeholder)

Beyond the SNAP3 consultation, Programme management stakeholders suggested that there were limited examples of the views of vulnerable groups being valued and acted upon at a national level, and that it was difficult to measure how the views of vulnerable groups had impacted on policy-making.

“[Adaptation Scotland] helped facilitate [SNAP3 consultation] workshops… I know how that has gone through the machinery and has influenced the final document. So I can say with confidence that has happened. I guess what I was hesitating slightly on was more just in terms of how frequently that happens” (Programme management stakeholder)

While contributing to the outcome that the views of those most vulnerable to climate change are valued and acted upon was an objective of the Programme, stakeholders held mixed views on the extent to which progress had been made towards this outcome. In part, this reflected differing levels of awareness of this aspect of the Programme among stakeholders and uncertainty about what activities should fall within the scope of the claim.

There was also a view that this outcome had not been the primary focus of the Programme and that wider Scottish Government activity, particularly around Just Transition and social justice, had contributed to progress in this area. Public and third sector stakeholders noted that considering the needs of vulnerable groups already formed part of their organisational role and responsibilities, irrespective of involvement with Adaptation Scotland.

“There are other areas that we're working on in terms of a Just Transition and a lot of that is guided as well by Scottish Government legislation and the Climate Change plan and other things that I wouldn't say that Adaptation Scotland has been a critical feature… [there has] certainly been amazing benefits, but equally it's not in isolation” (Public sector stakeholder)

Despite these challenges, there was evidence that Adaptation Scotland played an important role in convening organisations, facilitating engagement activities and creating opportunities for vulnerable groups and their representative organisations to contribute to adaptation discussions. However, stakeholders generally felt that the longer-term impacts of this engagement are still emerging and remain difficult to evidence.

“The work that the Programme does is really good, but the large-scale changes are yet to come... maybe it's laid really good groundwork so that the work is all done in a fair, just equal way... But I don't think we're in a position to say if that's the case yet.” (Programme management stakeholder)

Other contributing factors

The contribution analysis found evidence that the Programme has contributed to progress across all five contribution claims. However, it is unlikely that observed outcomes can be attributed solely to the Programme, given the complex landscape in which it operates. Stakeholders consistently highlighted a range of contextual factors, external influences and organisational characteristics that have also shaped progress towards adaptation outcomes. These factors interacted with Programme support and, in many cases, influenced the extent to which increased awareness, knowledge and collaboration translated into adaptation action.

Wider policy and climate context

Several stakeholders described adaptation as becoming more visible and prominent during the current contract period. This was linked not only to the activities of the Programme, but also to broader policies (e.g. SNAP3 and Just Transition) increasing policy attention to climate resilience, and growing awareness of climate risks across sectors. Stakeholders frequently referred to extreme weather events, including storms, flooding and overheating, as important catalysts for engagement on adaptation. These events helped make adaptation risks more tangible and increased demand for information, support and collaboration. Among public sector stakeholders, statutory climate reporting requirements also influenced approaches to adaptation.

In relation to policy outcomes, stakeholders also noted that greater visibility of adaptation across Scottish Government was influenced by wider policy developments and cross-government activity. Similarly, the emergence of regional adaptation partnerships was supported by commitments set out in SNAP3 and wider interest in place-based approaches to climate resilience.

Organisational leadership, capacity and resources

Across all contribution claims, organisational factors influenced outcomes. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of senior leadership support, organisational culture, staff capacity and available funding in determining whether adaptation activity progressed. Organisations with dedicated climate staff, senior champions or existing adaptation expertise were generally better placed to make use of Programme support and convert learning into action. These factors influenced outcomes across multiple contribution claims. For example, leadership support was seen as critical in enabling organisations to act on knowledge gained through networks such as PSCAN and CRIS. Staff capacity and available resources also shaped the extent to which organisations could utilise Programme tools and guidance.

Stakeholders frequently stressed that increased knowledge and confidence did not automatically progress to implementation if organisations lacked the resources, authority or buy-in required to drive action forward.

Existing adaptation activity and stakeholder maturity

The evaluation found that some organisations, partnerships and individuals were already engaged in adaptation activity before receiving support from the Programme. This was particularly evident among some public bodies, third sector organisations and regional partnerships which had existing networks, community relationships or climate-related responsibilities.

As a result, some progress observed during the evaluation period may have occurred without Programme involvement. However, stakeholders often suggested that the Programme accelerated progress by providing access to expertise, peer learning opportunities, tools, networks and practical support that would otherwise have taken significantly longer to develop. The Programme was therefore commonly viewed as helping organisations progress further and quicker than they would have done independently.

Contributions from other organisations, networks and programmes

The Programme operates within a broader ecosystem of organisations supporting adaptation in Scotland. Stakeholders frequently referred to drawing on information, expertise and support from bodies including ClimateXChange, SEPA, NatureScot, Scottish Water, the Met Office, universities, sector representative bodies and professional networks. Participants also described benefiting from involvement in networks such as the SSN, MACC Hub and various sector-specific or regional partnerships.

These organisations and networks contributed to increased knowledge, research dissemination, policy development and adaptation planning. In most cases, activities complemented those of Adaptation Scotland. For example:

• Other networks supported knowledge sharing and professional learning.
• National bodies provided specialist evidence, climate data and technical expertise.
• Climate Action Hubs and community organisations supported local engagement and community-led adaptation activity.
• Existing regional partnerships and place-based initiatives provided structures through which adaptation activity could develop.

Stakeholders frequently highlighted the distinct value of Adaptation Scotland in bringing together these different sources of information and translating them into practical, Scotland-specific guidance, tools, networks and support.

“Just having it all collated in an accessible way that's, that's so helpful for organisations like ourselves that just don't have the time to really be going out and doing this ourselves." (Third/community sector stakeholder)

Challenges associated with adaptation

Stakeholders identified several barriers that reflected wider challenges associated with adaptation rather than limitations of the Programme. Adaptation was often viewed as a long-term issue competing against more immediate organisational priorities. This was particularly evident within parts of the private sector, among smaller organisations and in organisations facing wider financial pressures.

Participants also highlighted that adaptation remains a relatively unfamiliar concept compared with climate mitigation. As a result, organisations may struggle to understand its relevance to their role, identify appropriate actions, or secure internal support for adaptation initiatives. Similar challenges were identified in engagement with communities and vulnerable groups, particularly in areas where limited capacity, competing priorities or the absence of established representative organisations made engagement more difficult.

Summary

Evidence suggests that outcomes observed during the evaluation period were shaped by an interaction between Adaptation Scotland support and a range of external influences. While broader policy developments, climate impacts, organisational characteristics and support from other organisations all contributed to progress, stakeholders consistently identified the Programme as an important enabling factor. Its contribution was not generally viewed as acting in isolation, but rather as accelerating progress, strengthening capacity, facilitating collaboration, increasing confidence and helping organisations, partnerships and communities make more effective use of wider opportunities and resources.

Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter draws the impact and process evaluation findings together to answer the core research objectives.

Overall assessment of Programme contribution

Evidence across the contribution claims suggests the Programme has made substantial progress towards some of its intended outcomes. The strongest and most consistent evidence relate to the following short- and medium-term outcomes as set out in the Theory of Change:

• Building networks: there was strong and consistent evidence of the Programme’s contribution to the development and strengthening of adaptation-focused networks across Scotland. PSCAN and CRIS were the most prominent examples which have provided organisations with access to expertise, peer learning and practical guidance on adaptation. However, network development was uneven across sectors, and evidence suggests that the long-term value of networks will depend on the Programme's ability to reach organisations who are not yet engaged, and to evolving support for organisations at different stages of adaptation maturity.
• Increasing knowledge and confidence: stakeholders consistently reported that engagement with the Programme had improved their understanding of climate risks, adaptation approaches and how to drive adaptation within their organisations/across partnerships. The Programme was seen to be particularly effective in translating complex climate and adaptation evidence into practical and accessible guidance that stakeholders could apply within their own contexts. A gap in support for senior leaders was identified by some stakeholders, who it was felt could help to drive adaptation action forward within their organisations. Some stakeholders at more advanced stages of their adaptation journey also expressed an interest in more implementation-focused guidance.
• Improving access to relevant adaptation tools and resources: stakeholders across the public, private and third sectors consistently described Programme resources as practical, accessible and tailored to different audiences and contexts. Co-design processes involving sector specialists and stakeholders strengthened the relevance and usability of resources. Organisations reported using Programme tools and resources to support risk assessments, adaptation planning, staff training and wider organisational capacity building. However, stakeholders identified opportunities to strengthen these materials through additional implementation-focused case studies, and more guidance on adaptation finance and investment.
• Facilitating greater collaboration across sectors and regions: alongside the networks, the Programme’s support of regional adaptation partnerships was consistently highlighted. Its role in convening organisations, facilitating strategic planning, and helping to identify regional climate risks and priorities were most strongly valued by those involved in these partnerships. The Programme's contribution appears particularly strong in this area, with some stakeholders suggesting that partnerships would have progressed much more slowly, or would not have been established at all, without Programme support. Nevertheless, many partnerships remain at an early stage of development and evidence of adaptation action arising from these collaborations is still emerging. Challenges also remain around engaging some key partners, communities and businesses, avoiding duplication with existing partnerships, and maintaining momentum as partnerships move from planning towards implementation.

The evaluation found more limited evidence further along the causal pathway in terms of the Programme’s contribution to effective adaptation action, the views of vulnerable groups being acted upon and increased engagement with adaptation policy:

• Adaptation planning has not consistently translated to effective adaptation action: while the evaluation has found emerging evidence of these outcomes beginning to translate into adaptation planning, organisational change and place-based action, progression to large-scale implementation remains constrained by factors largely beyond the programme's control. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of senior decision-maker buy-in, organisational capacity, funding, staffing, wider policy drivers, observable climate impacts and statutory requirements in influencing progress on adaptation.
• How the views of those most vulnerable to climate change have influenced adaptation decisions at local and national levels is not clear: there was strong evidence that the Programme has engaged groups considered vulnerable to climate change and supported opportunities for their perspectives to inform adaptation discussions, resource development and consultation processes. Stakeholders highlighted the Programme's role in supporting development of SNAP3, including facilitating engagement with communities and groups that Scottish Government may otherwise have struggled to reach. There was also evidence that participation in Programme activities had increased awareness of fairness, justice and vulnerability considerations among some organisations. However, evidence was less clear and consistent on the extent to which these perspectives have subsequently influenced decision-making, policy development or adaptation action at local or national level. In part, this is driven by the fact that there are a range of organisations and initiatives (e.g. Just Transition) working in this area already, making it difficult to attribute activity in this area directly to the Programme. Nevertheless, across stakeholder groups, there was limited visibility of how the views gathered via the Programme were acted upon in practice, suggesting that this remains an area where progress is emerging rather than firmly established.
• Direct evidence of the Programme’s influence on policy decisions is lacking: evidence suggests that the Programme has increased engagement with adaptation policy and planning across a range of organisations, sectors and policy areas. Its contribution was strongest in creating opportunities for stakeholders to engage support with the development of SNAP3, increasing awareness of adaptation policy developments, and helping organisations align their own plans and activities with national adaptation priorities. There was less evidence demonstrating direct influence on policy decisions.

Aspects of the Programme that have been effective in contributing to outcomes and what could be improved

Trusted relationships, credibility and expertise

The relationships developed between programme management staff, stakeholders and partners were identified as a key strength of the Programme. Across sectors, stakeholders consistently described Adaptation Scotland as a credible and authoritative source of expertise on climate adaptation. In particular, Verture’s ability to translate complex evidence into practical guidance, combined with a collaborative and responsive approach to stakeholder engagement, appears to have been fundamental to many of the outcomes identified in the evaluation. Relationship-building, strong facilitation, effective network management and co-design skills were all recognised as having enabled the Programme to act as a trusted intermediary between policy, research and practice to support a diverse range of organisations. Maintaining this combination of technical expertise and relationship-based approach should be a key priority for future delivery of the Programme.

Trust was also evident within programme governance and management arrangements, with strong relationships between Scottish Government and Verture supporting responsive and pragmatic decision-making. These strong relationships were attributed to a number of key success factors, including the complementary strengths of the Scottish Government adaptation team in providing strategic direction and policy leadership and Verture’s practical expertise around what works for different audiences and relationship-building skills. Regular and open communication through fortnightly meetings supported collaborative working and efficient decision-making. The cluster approach was also felt to facilitate a trusting relationship as it provided multiple contact points, enabling efficient access to specialist knowledge and different levels of seniority across both organisations. Future delivery should therefore seek to foster collaborative working relationships that support openness, constructive challenge, learning and adaptive management.

Responsive and flexible delivery

The Programme's responsiveness to stakeholder feedback, emerging evidence and policy developments was widely viewed as a strength. Stakeholders highlighted the flexibility created through the two-phase design process and the Programme's ability to respond to changing priorities following publication of SNAP3. Adaptation Scotland was also perceived as willing to tailor support to different audiences and circumstances, helping organisations access support that was appropriate to their needs and stage of development. This flexibility was found to have supported the Programme's contribution to outcomes such as network development, increased knowledge and support for regional adaptation partnerships.

At the same time, programme management stakeholders highlighted an ongoing tension between responsiveness and strategic focus. There was a perception that the Programme's broad remit, combined with finite resources, created a risk of activity becoming too dispersed across audiences, sectors and clusters. Several stakeholders suggested that future programme design may benefit from a clearer prioritisation of where support can add greatest value.

Partnership working and collaboration

Partnership working is a core feature of the Programme, and this was found to have strengthened both delivery and impact. The evaluation found evidence of the Programme utilising delivery partners, sector specialists, research organisations and intermediary organisations to expand its reach, improve the relevance of support and engage audiences that may otherwise have been difficult to access. Collaborative approaches to resource development and delivery were widely reported and particularly valued, helping to ensure that support reflected different needs.

However, collaborative delivery also introduced dependencies on external organisations and individuals, creating delays and challenges when partners faced competing priorities or limited capacity. MI and stakeholder feedback suggest that these challenges were generally managed effectively, but they nevertheless represent an inherent risk within the delivery model.

Reach and engagement

The evaluation found evidence that the Programme has engaged stakeholders across the public, private and third/community sectors, with particularly strong evidence of engagement through PSCAN and contribution to the development of regional adaptation partnerships. Stakeholders generally described the Programme as approachable, supportive and responsive when support was requested. Communications activity, including the website, newsletter and events, was also viewed positively by those already engaged with the Programme.

Nevertheless, evidence suggests that some audiences remain more difficult to reach than others. This includes SMEs, organisations with limited capacity, and vulnerable groups who are not already engaged with adaptation networks or support services. There was also evidence that stakeholders who were not already engaged with Adaptation Scotland were sometimes unclear about the support available or how it related to their own organisation, suggesting a need for clearer signposting on the website about accessing support, as well as more proactive and targeted engagement approaches.

Governance, learning and performance monitoring

Existing governance arrangements were generally viewed positively. Stakeholders described constructive engagement with and from the Programme Board and valued opportunities for oversight and challenge. The Policy Forum was felt to complement the Board and bring in a wider range of relevant policy perspectives. The relationship between Scottish Government and the delivery team was also considered to support effective programme management.

However, programme management stakeholders identified opportunities to strengthen governance and learning arrangements. These included greater involvement of the Board in strategic discussion and co-design, wider engagement with external stakeholders when shaping future priorities, and a stronger focus on reflection, learning and continuous improvement throughout the contract period. There was also a view that existing monitoring arrangements remain focused on activities and outputs rather than outcomes, relationships and longer-term change. Given the Programme's recognised and valued role as a catalyst and facilitator, future monitoring frameworks should place greater emphasis on measuring outcomes, progression of and contribution to adaptation action.

Recommendations for delivery of the Programme up to 2027

The following recommendations reflect key themes arising from both the process and impact evaluation findings, focusing on the practical next steps that can be taken during the current contract period.

Recommendation 1. Capture and disseminate programme learning

The evaluation identified a perception that opportunities to formally reflect on learning from earlier phases of the Programme had been limited. Stakeholders also highlighted the value of the Programme's adaptive approach and the importance of understanding what has worked well and less well across clusters. Short-term actions to address this could include:

• Delivering a cross-cluster learning workshop to capture lessons on engagement, partnership working and implementation support.
• Undertaking a formal lessons-learned exercise involving Scottish Government, Verture, Board members and key delivery partners.
• Documenting the key delivery principles, relationship-building approaches and partnership models that have contributed to success.
• Reviewing the cluster model to identify potential areas of overlap as well as opportunities for further collaboration.

Recommendation 2. Develop and communicate Programme offer to non-engaged groups

Some stakeholders were unclear about the support available, how to access it, and the relationship between Adaptation Scotland, Verture and Scottish Government. The evaluation also found evidence that organisations not already engaged with the Programme sometimes struggled to see how support was relevant to them. Addressing this in the short-term could involve:

• Developing clearer messaging on who the Programme is for, what support is available and how organisations can engage.
• Mapping current engagement among stakeholders to identify groups missing or under-engaged and consider more targeted solutions to engage them (e.g. refreshing website signposting of existing resources, development of distinct tools/resources, producing more targeted ‘getting started’ guidance, testing alternative resource formats such as short videos).
• Strengthen links with organisations working with vulnerable groups and communities to identify future opportunities to further engage and amplify those voices.

Recommendation 3. Strengthen support for organisations moving from planning to implementation

The evaluation highlighted that evidence of increased knowledge, confidence and planning was considerably stronger than evidence of implementation around adaptation. To provide immediate support to organisations ready to move from planning to action, the Programme could:

• Work with organisations at a more mature stage in adaptation to co-produce guidance on transitioning from risk assessment and planning to implementation.
• Produce implementation-focused case studies ready to support organisations as they transition to this stage.

Recommendation 4. Target senior decision makers

The evaluation identified a gap in engagement with senior decision-makers. Stakeholders suggested that stronger leadership engagement could help overcome barriers to implementation within organisations. This could be achieved in the short term through:

• Engaging senior leaders already championing adaptation to understand potential opportunities and barriers.
• Piloting targeted engagement with senior leaders across key sectors.
• Developing concise leadership-focused briefing materials focused on strategic risks, opportunities and organisational resilience.

Recommendations for design and delivery of the Programme beyond 2027

The following recommendations relate to the design and delivery of the Programme in the next contract and beyond, focusing on how it can progress towards its intended longer term outcomes and enhance its effectiveness in supporting Scotland’s adaptation efforts.

Recommendation 5. Support progression from adaptation awareness to implementation

The evaluation found strong evidence that the Programme has contributed effectively to increasing knowledge, confidence, networks and access to tools and resources. Evidence of this progressing to adaptation action was less developed and stakeholders highlighted challenges in moving from awareness to action. While these barriers lie outside the Programme’s control, future design could position Adaptation Scotland as a national capability and implementation support programme, helping organisations move beyond risks assessment and planning towards delivery, by:

• Developing differentiated support pathways according to adaptation maturity (from introductory support for organisations at an earlier stage and harder to reach audiences through to implementation support for organisations completing risk assessments and plans).
• Enhanced support on adaptation finance, investment planning and business case development.

Recommendation 6. Sharpen strategic focus around Scotland’s adaptation priorities

Stakeholders consistently valued the Programme's flexibility and responsiveness, particularly its ability to adapt delivery in response to stakeholder feedback and policy developments such as SNAP3. However, there was also concern that the breadth of activity across sectors, geographies and thematic areas risked diluting impact. The Programme could retain the flexibility that stakeholders value while sharpening its strategic focus and providing a clearer articulation of the support offer. This could involve:

• Considering a smaller number of strategic priorities linked to SNAP3 outcomes.
• Clarifying priority audiences and desired outcomes through a clear articulation of the Programme’s role within the wider adaptation policy landscape.
• Focus resources on areas where national coordination and capacity building are least likely to emerge without intervention (including audiences currently under-engaged).

Recommendation 7. Strengthen and scale support for place-based adaptation and cross-sector collaboration

The evaluation found particularly strong evidence of the Programme's contribution to establishing and supporting regional adaptation partnerships. Stakeholders consistently described the Programme's support as critical to the development and progress of partnerships. However, many partnerships remain at a relatively early stage and face challenges engaging all relevant partners and maintaining momentum towards implementation. Future design and delivery should therefore focus on scaling and maturing regional adaptation partnerships by:

• Supporting partnerships to progress from establishment and planning to implementation of adaptation projects (with guidance on identifying and securing funding).
• Developing a shared national learning and evidence network across regions.
• Exploring scalable approaches for engaging communities, businesses and national public bodies within regional structures.

Recommendation 8. Strengthen the Programme’s role as national adaptation convenor and capacity building service

A key strength of the current Programme is its ability to connect policy, research and practice. As adaptation activity increases across Scotland, there is an opportunity for the Programme to play a stronger role as a national convenor, bringing together government, public bodies, communities, the third sector, businesses and research organisations around shared adaptation priorities. This could be achieved through:

• Enhancing the role of the Board in strategic discussion and co-design.
• Broadening opportunities for external stakeholders to inform strategic priorities and identify current/future needs (such as community groups, third sector organisations, businesses and under-engaged audiences).
• Expanding engagement with senior leaders across sectors to accelerate capacity building.

Recommendation 9: Increasing focus on helping to shape adaptation policy

The evaluation found strong evidence of Adaptation Scotland increasing knowledge and engagement with adaptation policy, evidence of stakeholders helping to shape policy was more limited. The Programme could play a stronger role in mainstreaming adaptation across policy areas and ensuring learning from implementation informs future policy development, through:

• Strengthening mechanisms for bringing regional and community perspectives (particularly those of those most vulnerable to climate change) into policy development.
• Consider a ‘you said, we did’ approach to communications, with clearer feedback loops showing how stakeholder input has informed policy and decision-making.
• Developing stronger links between delivery activities and national policy development (e.g. through networks, events and training).

Recommendation 10: Outcomes-focused performance measurement

Existing monitoring arrangements are perceived to place greater emphasis on outputs than outcomes. There was a view that important areas of progress such as relationship-building, influence, collaboration and organisational capability had not been fully captured. While this evaluation has gathered evidence across these areas, monitoring frameworks could help embed this in future (see suggested KPIs below), with greater emphasis placed on:

• Capturing organisational progress over time.
• Organisational capacity and confidence.
• Engagement with networks.
• Adaptation actions taken.
• Contribution to policy and decisions at both national and regional level.
• Evidence of how the views of vulnerable groups inform adaptation planning and decision-making.

Updated Key Performance Indicators

The evaluation identified a need to strengthen performance monitoring beyond programme activities and participation, towards measures that capture influence, capability, collaboration and progress towards adaptation action. Existing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provide good coverage of outputs and reach, but place less emphasis on outcomes and longer-term change.

Future monitoring should therefore retain a concise set of activity measures while introducing a more focused set of outcome indicators aligned with the Programme's intended outcomes. The KPIs should primarily assess the reach of the Programme across its target audiences, and the impact on organisations being engaged, including: their adaptation capability, application of adaptation tools and resources, cross-sectoral collaboration, influence on policy and planning, progress on adaptation action, and consideration of the needs and perspectives of those most vulnerable to climate change. This shift in focus recognises the flexibility required around the Programme’s activities to best meet the diverse needs of stakeholders while continuing to progress towards its outcomes.

The tables below suggest KPIs across three dimensions (activity, reach and outcome) under each contribution/outcome theme, as well as suggestions for data sources that could be drawn on to measure the KPIs.

Contribution Claim 1: Leadership and networks

The evaluation found strong evidence of the Programme's role in building networks, increasing knowledge and developing leadership capacity. Future monitoring should build on this by measuring how actively members engage with the networks, what individuals and organisations do as a result of network participation, and how effectively senior decision makers are engaged on adaptation.

A clear definition of the types of leaders the Programme seeks to engage will be important for measuring reach and outcome KPIs. Leadership can occur at multiple organisational levels, but the evaluation highlighted that progress from awareness and planning to implementation is often dependent on individuals with overarching responsibility. A distinction could therefore be drawn between adaptation champions (staff, practitioners and community networks who engage with the networks) and adaptation enablers (senior decision makers responsible for budgets, assets, policy and strategic priorities).

Leadership and network KPIs

Activity KPIs:

• Support for the networks (PSCAN, CRIS, PSLAN)
• Delivery of events and training to networks

Reach KPIs:

• Number and profile (e.g. sector, geography, adaptation maturity, job role) of network members
• Number and profile of senior decision makers engaged in networks

Outcome KPIs:

Individual outcomes - proportion of network members reporting:

• Better understanding of adaptation
• Increased confidence to lead adaptation activity
• Greater ability to influence decisions
• Taking on ownership within their organisation
• Specific decisions or actions taken as a result of network participation
• Undertaking leadership roles (e.g. task groups, steering activities, establishing further networks

Organisational outcomes – number of organisations:

• Progressing through the Climate Adaptation Capacity Framework (ACF) maturity measures
• Completing climate risk assessments
• Developing strategic plans including adaptation
• Implementing adaptation actions

Perceptions of network value:

• Peer learning
• Relationship-building
• Sharing resources
• Collaboration
• Access to expertise

Data sources:

• Network attendance
• Network meeting minutes
• Pre/post event surveys
• Annual network member survey
• ACF benchmarking reports

Contribution Claim 2: Effective adaptation approaches

The evaluation found strong evidence of the Programme producing valuable tools and resources and highlighted the benefits of a co-development approach with particular sectors. Future monitoring should also measure the extent to which such guidance is being applied and informing decisions and actions.

A clear understanding of what is meant by ‘effective’ adaptation will be important for future monitoring and should be defined by contribution to SNAP3 outcomes.

Effective adaptation approaches KPIs

Activity KPIs:

• Engagement with specialists
• (Co-)development of tools and resources
• Delivery of training/events

Reach KPIs:

• Number/profile of specialists engaged with (e.g. for research, networks, events)
• Number of policy areas supported through evidence, review or advice
• Number/profile of organisations accessing/using tools and resources
• Number/profile of organisations involved in co-development of tools and resources
• Number/profile of organisations attending events/training

Outcome KPIs:

Proportion of organisations:

• Applying a tool or resource within 6 months
• Reporting that a tool or resource changed practice, policy or investment decisions
• Reporting use of research/input of specialist in adaptation decisions

Number of organisations:

• Progressing from risk assessment to adaptation planning
• Progressing from planning to implementation of adaptation action

Spread and diversity of adaptation actions taken (including by sector, geography, organisational maturity)

Data sources:

• Webpage visits and downloads
• Event/training attendance
• Pre/post event surveys
• Annual stakeholder survey, routed by resource use
• Feedback from relevant Scottish Government policy teams
• Existing population surveys (e.g. Climate Survey – this currently focuses on adaptation actions but could also measure perceptions of adaptation being effective, fair, just…). While these data sources are external to the Programme and cannot directly measure impact, they can be consulted as part of contribution analysis.

Contribution Claim 3: Place-based adaptation

The evaluation found strong evidence of strengthened regional adaptation partnerships and adaptation planning that reflects the needs and interests of local communities. Future monitoring should therefore increasingly focus on the maturity of partnerships and the delivery of adaptation projects. It will be important to understand the contribution of the Programme to place-based adaptation through the partnerships, recognising that this is part of a wider Scottish Government initiative.

Place-based adaptation KPIs

Activity KPIs:

• Support provided to regional adaptation partnerships
• Progression of partnerships through the regional adaptation partnerships route map
• Development of tools and resources for/with regional adaptation partnerships

Reach KPIs:

• Number/profile of partnerships supported (including type of organisations actively involved in each partnership)
• Number/profile of partnerships engaging with the route map
• Number/profile of partnerships using tools and resources

Outcome KPIs:

• Number of partnerships applying a tool/resource within 6 months
• Number of partnerships progressing at least one stage through the route map per year / partnership self-assessment of progress
• Number of adaptation projects delivered through partnerships (including spread and diversity of actions)
• Number of adaptation projects securing additional external funding through partnerships / value of investment
• Proportion of partnerships reporting that a tool or resource informed a decision, plan or investment
• Proportion of partnership members reporting increase in collaboration (e.g. growing partnership members and/or collaborative projects with key sectors within the region, other partnerships, and relevant national bodies)

Data sources:

• Route map assessments
• Annual stakeholder survey, routed by partnership membership
• Project pipeline monitoring
• Case studies

Contribution Claim 4: Knowledge, engagement and policy informing

The Programme's support to enable stakeholders to shape policy and capacity-building emerged as an important but currently under-measured area. Future monitoring should therefore seek more direct feedback on this from policy teams, Board members and supported organisations to understand the impact on policy and adaptation actions taken at local and national levels.

Knowledge, engagement and policy informing KPIs

Activity KPIs:

• Participation in research and innovation networks
• Collaboration on relevant projects, task forces, research
• Support stakeholders to engage with adaptation experts
• Engagement with Scottish Government policy teams

Reach KPIs:

• Number of evidence calls and engagement events
• Number of experts presenting at network events
• Number of policy teams/directorates engaged
• Number of policy consultations or processes supported

Outcome KPIs:

Proportion of organisations engaged in knowledge sharing and policy development activities reporting:

• Better understanding of adaptation
• Increased capacity to drive adaptation forward
• Greater engagement across organisation on adaptation
• Involvement in policy development and implementation
• Increase in collaboration
• Number of organisations:
• Progressing from risk assessment to adaptation planning
• Progressing from planning to implementation of adaptation action (including spread and diversity of actions)
• Proportion of policy stakeholders reporting that Programme input informed policy development
• Proportion of Board/Forum members reporting that the Programme influenced adaptation policy or delivery

Data sources:

• Communications engagement metrics
• Statutory reporting (public sector)
• Annual survey of stakeholders
• Pre/post event surveys
• Progress updates to Programme management.
• Feedback from Board, Policy Forum members and Scottish Government teams
• Case studies

Contribution Claim 5: Vulnerable groups and inclusive adaptation

The evaluation found evidence of vulnerable groups being engaged through the Programme, but more limited evidence demonstrating how the perspectives of these groups influenced policy or delivery decisions. Future monitoring should therefore focus not just on engagement metrics, but on whether and the extent to which vulnerable groups influence decisions and actions.

Defining the groups most vulnerable to climate change will be important for monitoring progress in this area and should reflect the groups identified in SNAP3 as being most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in Scotland (as well as those identified future iterations of the Scottish Government’s national adaptation plans).

Vulnerable groups and inclusive adaptation KPIs

Activity KPIs:

• Deliver training for third sector organisations working with communities
• Support for Climate Action Hubs
• Supporting Scottish Government’s public engagement plans
• Produce, gather and disseminate insight papers on key topics (including groups most vulnerable to climate change impacts)

Reach KPIs:

• Number of community training and learning with organisations representing vulnerable group (including profile of attendees, geographical coverage)
• Number and reach of tools and resources developed for vulnerable groups
• Number of tools and resources co-developed with vulnerable groups
• Number/profile of Climate Action Hubs supported
• Number of engagement activities targeting vulnerable groups
• Number of papers delivered that amplify views of vulnerable groups

Outcome KPIs:

Proportion of organisations reporting that:

• Vulnerable groups informed adaptation decisions and approaches (and how)
• Engagement activities informed local or national decision-making
• Number of adaptation projects with an explicit vulnerability or just resilience focus
• Proportion of policy stakeholders reporting that views of vulnerable groups gathered via Programme informed policy decisions

Data sources:

• Climate Hub monitoring returns
• Existing relevant Scottish Government data (e.g. Scottish Climate Survey, Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment, impact assessments on equality, island communities, Just Transition monitoring data)
• Pre/post event surveys
• Annual survey of stakeholders
• Case studies

Key considerations for updated KPIs

The inclusion of these updated KPIs in the next Adaptation Scotland Programme contract should take account of the following considerations:

• Remit - ensuring outcome KPIs remain within the Programme's sphere of influence. As previously noted, attribution to the Programme becomes increasingly difficult further along the causal pathway of each contribution claim. Measures should therefore focus on progress towards action rather than responsibility for wider resilience outcomes.
• Proportionality – avoiding monitoring requirements that create additional burden for Programme management or stakeholders. It should be recognised that outcomes relating to policy influence, leadership and action are difficult to measure and reliant on self-assessment. However, new indicators should consider the capacity of those involved in delivering the Programme and those being engaged by it. A relatively small number of meaningful outcome indicators, supported by a mix of quantitative and qualitative data periodically collected, will deliver more complete and insightful monitoring than a large number of highly detailed KPIs.
• Integration – drawing on existing data sources as much as possible. The Programme should maximise use of existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms, such as the Climate Adaptation Capability Framework benchmarking, statutory reporting by public bodies and wider population data.
• Shared understanding – agreeing clearer definitions for core concepts before finalising the KPIs. This will ensure that monitoring accurately reflects the intended outcomes and that information gathered from programme management, Scottish Government policy teams and stakeholders is based on a shared understanding of key aspects of the Programme, such as leadership, effective action and vulnerability. This could be achieved through reflecting the language used in SNAP3 and the Climate Adaptation Capability Framework.