What Difference Can a Workshop Make? Lessons from an Evaluation of Eight Place-Based Climate Adaptation Workshops in the United States

Abstract

Place-based climate adaptation workshops are designed to help communities understand their climate-related vulnerabilities and plan adaptive actions in response. Through a series of surveys and interviews with participants, we examined the immediate and long-term impacts of eight place-based climate adaptation workshops in the United States. Six took place online due to COVID-19 restrictions; two took place in-person. All workshops positively enhanced declarative, procedural, and relational knowledge of participants and, to a lesser extent, their personal commitment to work on climate adaptation, optimism about climate adaptation in their communities, and perceptions of qualities of the network of actors engaged locally in climate adaptation. In-person workshops yielded somewhat stronger positive influences on relationship-building than online workshops. Most participants who responded to surveys 6 months to a year after the workshop reported that their workshop had a “minor” to “moderate” impact on stimulating meaningful adaptation actions in their area. Reported actions attributed to the workshops included the incorporation of climate adaptation into formal planning documents, the expansion of adaptation outreach, consideration of climate adaptation in day-to-day planning and decision-making in local government departments, and both successful and unsuccessful grant applications for projects and positions associated with climate adaptation. We describe the workshops’ design, as well as participant assessments of the value of different workshop components. We conclude with lessons learned for future effective workshop planning and design.

1. Introduction

1.1. Place-Based Climate Adaptation Workshops

In light of increasing vulnerability to climate-related risks, many communities across the United States have begun to focus on climate adaptation, which can be defined as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities” [1]. Place-based climate adaptation workshops, which we define as convenings or a series of convenings designed to help multiple stakeholders develop strategies for adapting to climate change in a specific place, have become a common means for advancing this work [2,3]. These workshops are often facilitated by external climate adaptation professionals with specific expertise. They typically include the presentation of local climate projections, vulnerability assessments associated with those projections, and the development and prioritization of potential adaptive actions [3,4]. Research to date suggests that these workshops can generate awareness about climate adaptation, enhance collaborative relationships between participants around the issue, and equip participants with useful knowledge regarding climate adaptation strategies, as well as tools and processes to help prioritize their work [2,3,4,5,6]. However, their outcomes on individuals and impacts on local climate adaptation have been variable and typically measured in the short term [2,7,8,9,10].

This manuscript describes an evaluation of eight place-based climate adaptation workshops that took place in the United States between January 2021 and April 2023. Through surveys and interviews prior to and for two years following each workshop, we examine the impacts of the workshops on individuals’ learning, optimism and commitment, as well as their perceptions about the extent to which the workshops catalyzed climate adaptation in their localities. We also examine the components of the workshops that appeared to be the most (and least) valuable for meeting desired outcomes and share recommendations for future similar workshops.

1.2. What Contributions Could Place-Based Climate Adaptation Workshops Make?

Place-based climate adaptation workshops are designed to help communities understand their vulnerabilities to climate change and identify potential adaptive actions to address them. Through providing scientific evidence of likely regional climate impacts, tools to assess the risks they pose, and collaborative approaches to identifying potential responses, climate adaptation workshops have the potential to enable effective climate adaptation. Because effective climate adaptation typically requires cooperation across administrative, geographic, and disciplinary boundaries, these conditions stretch beyond personal capacities and motivations to include effective governance and political will; adequate financial, technological, and human resources; and sufficient awareness, knowledge, skills, and relationships to enable effective cross-sector collaboration [11,12,13].

At the personal level, climate adaptation workshops can enhance knowledge, feelings of connectedness to others working on climate adaptation, and perceptions related to self-efficacy and commitment to the work [2,6]. Drawing on earlier efforts to identify forms of learning in similar contexts [14,15], we consider three types of knowledge that may be generated in these settings: declarative, procedural, and relational knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to understanding facts, concepts, models, and other information relevant to the problem at hand [14,16]. Procedural knowledge involves the capacity to make use of those facts through relevant analyses, processes, or applications. Declarative knowledge represents the what; procedural knowledge represents the how-to [16]. This distinction is similar to Bloom’s famous taxonomy associated with different forms of learning, in which declarative knowledge is associated with lower forms of cognition, including remembering or understanding facts, and procedural knowledge is associated with higher orders, including application, analysis, evaluation, and creation [17]. Relational knowledge includes an understanding of the assets, perspectives, priorities, relationships, and activities of other actors within a network [6,18].

Equipped with sufficient knowledge of each type, participants in place-based climate adaptation workshops may also develop positive dispositions related to self-efficacy, defined as their belief that they can take action that will make a positive difference toward something they care about [19]. This belief relies on assumptions that one has the pre-requisite knowledge and skills to undertake the action, that they feel sufficiently free to do so, and that they have confidence that the action will have a meaningful impact [20,21]. The focus of climate adaptation on local issues and solutions, as opposed to addressing the causes of global climate change, for example, may strengthen these beliefs [22,23]. Enhanced feelings of self-efficacy are generally linked with higher likelihood of taking action [19,24,25]. The three forms of knowledge and positive personal dispositions thus provide a basis for effective collaboration within the network of actors working on climate adaptation in a locality [2,6].

Place-based climate adaptation workshops may also strengthen qualities of the network of entities working on climate adaptation and the context in which they work. These qualities may enhance perceptions of collective efficacy, defined as the shared belief in a group’s abilities to achieve desired results [19], making individuals more likely to stay engaged. While multiple frameworks exist that predict the effective functioning of broad networks in solving social problems, we focus on some of the critical functions undergirding effective network governance: direction, alignment, commitment, and procedural trust. Drath and colleagues [26] identified direction, alignment, and commitment as the key indicators of successful leadership of organizations. Numerous authors and studies have applied these functions to cross-sectoral partnerships and other collective action problems, e.g., [27,28,29,30]. Direction refers to agreement about the most important goals of the group. Alignment involves the coordination of knowledge, resources and tasks among group members to work toward those goals. Commitment is the continued willingness to continue to prioritize the work, even if that may involve deprioritizing personal or other goals. Positive direction, alignment, and commitment can foment sustained collaborative work.

The development of direction, alignment, and commitment, and successful collaborative work in general, is often predicated on trust [11,31]. Stern and colleagues [31,32] identified the importance of procedural trust for the long-term functioning and resilience of collaborative initiatives. Procedural trust, sometimes referred to as systems-based trust, involves individuals’ trust in the set of rules and processes, both formal and informal, that govern their interactions. Procedural trust is largely based on perceptions of transparency and fairness in decision-making processes, open and honest communications, and accountability mechanisms. Procedural trust is also typically strongly correlated with interpersonal trust between network members [31]. Procedural trust can set the basis for other forms of trust to develop and can buffer a collaborative network against the ill effects of interpersonal conflict [32]. If place-based climate adaptation workshops can help to set the conditions for the effective development of direction, alignment, commitment, and procedural trust, collaborative efforts in climate adaptation may be more likely to succeed.

2. Methods

The overall project was conducted in partnership between Virginia Tech and EcoAdapt, a nonprofit organization focused on climate adaptation (EcoAdapt.org). EcoAdapt staff served as the designers and facilitators of the workshops and co-designed each in consultation with local conveners. The Virginia Tech team designed all elements of the evaluation in consultation with EcoAdapt and used online and written surveys and follow-up interviews with workshop participants to address the following research questions:

• What impacts, if any, did the workshops have for individual participants and their outlook on climate adaptation in their area?
• To what extent, if any, did the workshops stimulate climate adaptation planning and action? What constrained actions?
• Which workshop components or design elements did participants value most?
• What did participants suggest to improve the workshops?

Although we had originally intended to conduct comparative case study research across each community to assess differences in impacts of the workshops conducted in varying sociopolitical, geographic, and ecological contexts, complications from the COVID-19 pandemic made the collection of data required for rigorously comparing cases infeasible. Moreover, confounding factors in each community quickly stretched beyond the workshop’s impacts into a wider array of potentially explanatory conditions [10]. Here, we present an evaluation of the workshop design and its impacts across sites, rather than a comparative study.

2.1. Community Selection

A request for applications to host a local climate adaptation workshop was disseminated nationally through multiple pre-existing adaptation and community planning networks, including the Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange and the American Society of Adaptation Professionals. Approximately 100 communities responded. Workshop communities were initially selected by EcoAdapt to diversify the contexts in which climate adaptation might take place, selecting communities with populations between 30,000 and 300,000 and a mix of rural (<500 people/m²) and urban (>500 people/m²) communities. Communities were also selected in states with and without policy mandates to conduct climate adaptation planning and in places with and without recent self-reported climate events. We expected that the existence of policy mandates might indicate political conditions more conducive to climate adaptation and that recent climate events might provide greater public support and/or urgency to address the issue [33]. Varying these conditions would provide a broader sense of the impacts of the workshops across meaningful differences in context. Eight communities were selected, also ensuring diversity in geographic location and the types of climate vulnerabilities likely to be encountered. Initially, the workshops were intended to take place in-person over two days. However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced six of the eight workshops to take place online (see

Table 1. Climate adaptation workshop details and host community overview.

Workshop	State-Level Adaptation Mandate	Prior Climate Event	Density	Dates	Format	Stage	Breakout Topics (“Focal Areas”)	Number of Participants
Santa Rosa, CA	Yes	Fire	Urban	19, 21, and 27 January 2021	Online	Advanced: Plan development in progress	Land Use + Economic Vitality Housing + Environmental Justice Transportation + Noise and Safety Public Services + Open Space	33
Johnson County, IA	No	Freshwater flooding	Rural	23 and 30 March and 6 April 2021	Online	Early: Prior to initiation of plan development	Land Use Health and Safety Transit Facilities and Public Services	28
Indian River County, FL	Yes	Hurricane and erosion	Rural	26 and 28 October and 3 November 2021	Online	Early: Prior to initiation of plan development	Utilities Transportation Conservation Lands and Parks	16
Kalamazoo, MI	No	None	Urban	8, 10 and 14 February 2022	Online	Advanced: Draft plan in existence that contains a chapter on adaptation	Connected Communities Habitat Conservation and Biodiversity Food Security and Agriculture	27
Butte Silver-Bow, MT	No	Wildfires, extreme heat a	Rural	8–9 June 2022	In-person	Advanced: Plan development in progress	Public Health Water Resources Contaminated Sites Protection and Redevelopment	26
Chattanooga, TN	No	Tornado, drought, wildfire	Urban	3, 4 and 6 October 2022	Online	Advanced: Draft plan in existence	Housing Transportation Natural Resources	27
Canton/Potsdam, NY	Yes	None	Urban	7, 9 and 14 March 2023	Online	Early: Prior to initiation of plan development	Housing Utilities Agriculture and Food Security	19
Salisbury, MD	Yes	Freshwater flooding a	Urban	24–25 April 2023	In-person	Early: Prior to initiation of plan development	Transit/housing Open Spaces	13

^a Prior climate events were not reported to EcoAdapt by community applicants prior to selection for inclusion in the study in Butte Silver-Bow and Salisbury. However, they were discovered after the commitment was made to develop the workshop.

). The online workshops were conducted as three half-day sessions over the course of up to two weeks.

2.2. Workshop Design and Process

The design of the workshops was based on a previous Delphi study, which solicited expert opinion from 22 facilitators of climate adaptation workshops [3,13,34]. While the overall design was largely consistent across the eight workshops, insights from earlier workshops led to minor adjustments to the agenda and structure of subsequent editions. We summarize the process here. For more details, see Rudnick et al. [34].

EcoAdapt’s process of engagement with each of the eight communities occurred in three phases: 1. Pre-workshop preparation; 2. Workshop facilitation; and 3. Post-workshop reporting. Prior to each workshop, EcoAdapt facilitators and the research team from Virginia Tech held video calls with the local convener(s), who were usually the individuals that had applied to host the workshop in their communities. These interviews typically occurred one-to-two months in advance of the planned workshop, to identify priority areas of concern regarding climate adaptation that would serve as breakout group topics during the workshops, track the status of their planning efforts, and establish which community members to invite to the workshop. Efforts were made to solicit participation from a diverse set of individuals in terms of expertise, influence, climate impacts, and demographics representing the community. While participation in one workshop was limited to local government employees, all others included representatives from both inside and outside of government agencies. The total number of participants was limited to keep breakout groups to a reasonable size (no more than 40 participants total, aiming for eight or fewer members per breakout group).

Registered participants received a detailed agenda, instructions for how to request stipends or technical assistance to aid their attendance, a short report containing climate projections for their locality, and introductions to two tools that would be used during the workshops. They were also directed to a webpage hosting all workshop materials.

All workshops began with a welcome from a community leader and a land acknowledgment. Online workshops also included a presentation of guidelines for navigating the online platform. Following introductions and icebreakers, the facilitators clarified the goals of the workshop, which focused on empowering participants with tools and processes to identify climate vulnerabilities in their communities and to develop and plan for adaptive actions to address them. They then presented a high-level overview of the concept of climate adaptation, shared examples of climate adaptation responses of other communities facing similar climate stressors, and reviewed the climate projections already shared with participants prior to the workshop. The facilitators then introduced the concept of vulnerability assessments prior to the initiation of breakout groups, which were focused on the topics identified by the local organizing team in pre-workshop calls (see Table 1).

2.3. Workshop Tools

Breakout groups, each containing three to 10 participants and a facilitator, were structured around the Rapid Vulnerability and Adaptation Tool (RVAT) [35]. Each breakout group maintained consistent membership (except for absences) throughout the workshop. Report outs involved flip chart summaries, short verbal reports, and/or a gallery walk for participants to review other groups’ progress. The RVAT contains four steps, corresponding with four 60–90 min work sessions for each breakout group over the course of the workshop. The first two steps comprise a vulnerability assessment, beginning with the identification of pre-existing conditions (e.g., water pollution, housing shortages, public health issues, racial inequity) and climate stressors that impact the assigned topic area for the breakout group. The group then selects the top three pre-existing conditions and climate stressors of concern that they would like to carry forward throughout the workshop and into subsequent breakout sessions.

In the next session, the breakout group considered the entities within the community that may play a role in managing resources relevant to the challenges identified and completed an exercise to assess their adaptive capacity. The session then used the RVAT to assess the likelihood and severity of each previously identified threat, as well as the community’s adaptive capacity to respond effectively (See Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials). This enables the calculation of an overall risk rating (low, moderate, high, extreme), which is weighed against perceptions of the community’s adaptive capacity. The exercise yields an overall vulnerability score for each threat (low, moderate, high). The breakout groups complete the vulnerability assessment by selecting the challenges they feel are most important to work on. For the sake of the workshop, facilitators guided breakout groups to select no more than five to carry forward.

The final two steps and sessions involve the development of potential strategies for addressing these identified vulnerabilities. In the first of these sessions, the breakout group brainstorms potential adaptive actions with the help of the facilitator, considering both the co-benefits and unintended consequences of each (Figure S2, Supplementary Materials). The final session involves prioritizing adaptation strategies and brainstorming an action plan by identifying key actors, a basic schedule, resources and barriers, as well as the likely efficacy and feasibility of each proposed action (Figure S3, Supplementary Materials). The final session concludes with efforts to get participants to commit to taking the next step on at least one prioritized action.

Each workshop culminated with each breakout group sharing prioritized actions and commitments by those willing to take the next step on those actions. Next steps ranged from sending out an email to those expressing potential interest to scheduling a meeting for subsequent action. The facilitators then shared cross-cutting concepts or ideas they heard throughout the workshop, shared encouragement with the group, and emphasized their willingness to remain available to provide technical support and resources to the community. Following each workshop, the facilitation team created a report summarizing the workshop activities, climate projections and impacts, results of the RVAT exercise for each topic area, and contact information of participants. All resources shared during the workshop were posted on the workshop’s dedicated website hosted by EcoAdapt (https://ecoadapt.org/workshops, accessed 1 December 2025).

Participants were also introduced to network maps and the Climate Change Adaptation Certification (CCAC) Tool [36], typically before the breakout groups. Network maps, created from responses on the registration survey, were shared with participants to aid in the consideration of who might lead or partner together to implement identified initiatives. The network maps showed relationships between all participants at the workshop, as well as non-participating entities that participants identified as important to climate adaptation. The network maps were designed to be interactive and searchable by topic area. All participants were given access to online network maps for their communities and the ability to add new entities or linkages (see ref. [34] for an example).

The CCAC tool leads users through a simple process of determining climate change risk factors and potential mitigation actions for specific project proposals they may have in mind. In online workshops, facilitators introduced the tool and made it an optional homework assignment. The lead facilitator provided feedback to those who completed the assignment and discussed key lessons during the final workshop session. For the in-person workshops, participants were given twenty minutes to start work on the CCAC and invited to complete it after the session. The lead facilitator provided feedback to those who did so following the workshop.

2.4. Data Collection

Evaluation data come from 315 surveys with workshop participants and 182 post-workshop interviews. Online surveys were administered to workshop participants via Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com/) or QuestionPro (https://www.questionpro.com/) (accessed on 1 December 2025) when they completed a registration form prior to the workshops, immediately following the workshops, six months later, and one year later. Paper surveys were employed for the immediate post-workshop surveys for the two in-person workshops. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom with a subset of participants within two weeks to one month following each workshop, and then six months and one year later. Interviews with the lead conveners of each workshop were also conducted post-workshop and then every six months up to two years after the workshops. Participation in the interviews was voluntary. All respondents were asked to note their willingness to be contacted for follow-up interviews on the immediate post-workshop surveys. Interviews were recorded and auto-transcribed using otter.ai software or Zoom’s Live Transcript feature. All data collection efforts were approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (Protocol #20-985).

2.5. Measurement and Analysis

2.5.1. Impacts of the Workshops

The pre-workshop and immediate post-workshop surveys contained identical batteries of items to measure personal dispositions, including elements related to self- and collective efficacy, comprised of perceptions of personal freedom to pursue creative solutions for climate adaptation, optimism about successful climate adaptation in their region, and commitment to being actively engaged in climate adaptation in their area; elements of declarative, procedural, and relational learning; and perceptions of the network of entities involved in climate adaptation locally, including assessments of direction, alignment, commitment, accountability, fair processes, and open communications within the network. Personal dispositions and learning items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type agreement scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Perceptions of the network were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at all accurate” (1) to “Completely accurate” (5). We conducted paired-sample t-tests to assess short-term changes in these measures following each workshop. The immediate post-workshop surveys also contained an open-ended question, “What do you feel the main outcomes of the workshop were?” Responses were qualitatively coded to assess participants’ short-term outcomes. To assess longer-term influences of the workshops on personal dispositions, we asked closed-ended retrospective questions about each previously measured survey item on the six-month follow-up survey. Respondents were asked the extent to which the workshop had a positive influence on each concept on a 5-point scale, ranging from “not at all” to “extremely.”

To further assess broader impacts of the workshop, the six-month and one-year follow-up surveys asked two additional questions. First, a closed-ended question, “In your opinion, did the workshop help stimulate adaptation actions in the area?” was posed with response options including Not at all, a minor amount, a major amount, and I am not sure of the workshop’s impact. Second, respondents were asked to respond to the following prompt: “Please describe any meaningful adaptation actions that you feel have been a result of the workshop and might not have happened without it.” These responses were qualitatively coded by the research team to assess the diversity of attributed actions.

Interviews also assessed the impacts of the workshops, as participants were asked to opine on what the workshops had achieved or influenced in their communities, their own personal role(s) in climate adaptation work, their relationships with others involved in climate adaptation, and their perceptions of key constraints and catalysts to climate adaptation in their locality. Most relevant to this manuscript, all interviews were selectively coded by the research team to categorize impacts of the workshops and constraints to action. Summary memos were drafted by one member of the research team for each workshop and reviewed by the other two team members with reference to their own coding process. Subsequent discussion between the three authors established consensus. We determined that an action could be attributed to a workshop if at least one participant made the claim, and no other interviewee refuted it. In some cases, a claim was made to attribute an action to the workshop by one participant, but another (or multiple others) explained that the action was either already underway or would have happened anyway. To stay conservative with claims of attribution, we do not report these actions as attributable to the workshop.

We report all impacts at the community/workshop scale. Thus, we combine evidence from both the follow-up surveys and our interviews to attribute the likely outcomes of each workshop within each community.

2.5.2. Assessing Workshop Design

The immediate post-workshop surveys asked two open-ended questions regarding what respondents felt to be the most effective components of the workshop and recommendations for making the workshop better. Similar assessments of the workshops were also solicited in the short-term post-workshop interviews. Write-in responses and interview transcripts were qualitatively coded for valued elements and suggestions for improvement by two of the authors independently and subsequently combined into coherent themes for reporting. We report frequencies by workshop and by number of individuals.

Six-month follow-up surveys asked respondents to rate the value of seven workshop components, including climate projections, the three workshop tools, presentation materials, relationships formed or strengthened, and the resulting workshop report, on a three-point scale: Not valuable, moderately valuable, very valuable. We also explored whether the online vs. in-person experience led to different outcomes by performing independent samples t-tests across the two types of convenings on the quantitatively measured workshop impacts described above.

3. Results

A total of 189 people attended at least a portion of the eight workshops. We collected immediate post-workshop surveys from 143 participants (76% response rate). Most (n = 27) of those who did not complete the immediate post-workshop survey were absent at the conclusion of the workshop when it was administered. One hundred and four completed the six-month follow-up survey, and 68 completed the one-year follow-up survey. Minimum response rates per workshop were 48% for the immediate post-workshop survey, 38% for the 6-month follow-up survey, and 15% for the one-year follow-up survey (all minimums were from the same workshop). We conducted 79 interviews within one month following each workshop (minimum of eight), 44 six months later (minimum of six), 35 one year later (minimum of one) and 18 interviews 18 months-to-two years later (minimum of one per workshop). The final interviews were limited to the lead conveners or convening team for each workshop. High turnover (movement of people out of the area or out of their professional positions) contributed heavily to diminishing response rates across most sites.

3.1. What Impacts, If Any, Did the Workshop Have for Individual Participants and Their Outlook on Climate Adaptation in Their Area?

Table 2. Comparison of pre- and immediate post-workshop scores on personal dispositions, learning, and perceptions of the network (paired samples t-tests). Significant differences passing a Bonferroni correction (p < 0.003) are bold and italicized.

Attendee Perceptions (n)	Timing	Means	t	p	Cohen’s d
Personal dispositions (7-pt agreement scale)
I have the freedom to pursue creative solutions for climate change adaptation (84) a	Before	5.02	2.3	0.012	0.25
	After	5.34
I am optimistic about successful climate adaptation in my region (139)	Before	4.67	2.4	0.010	0.20
	After	4.92
I am committed to being actively engaged in climate adaptation in my region (138)	Before	6.14	1.9	0.032	0.16
	After	6.27
Declarative knowledge (7-pt agreement scale)
I understand the impact of climate change in my region (137)	Before	5.88	1.8	0.039	0.15
	After	6.03
I feel I have a good understanding of the concept of climate adaptation (138)	Before	5.52	5.0	<0.001	0.43
	After	6.00
Procedural knowledge (7-pt agreement scale)
I know how to plan for meaningful climate adaptation in my region (138)	Before	4.46	10.1	<0.001	0.86
	After	5.52
I know how to identify which climate adaptation strategies are likely to be most successful (139)	Before	4.33	8.4	<0.001	0.71
	After	5.40
I know how to implement climate adaptation strategies (138)	Before	4.20	8.0	<0.001	0.68
	After	5.24
Relational knowledge (7-pt agreement scale)
I understand the relationships among the people and groups working on climate adaptation in my location (139)	Before	4.08	10.2	<0.001	0.86
	After	5.43
I understand the priorities of others engaged in climate adaptation work in my region (139)	Before	4.24	8.8	<0.001	0.75
	After	5.37
I see how my work can fit with the work of others in climate adaptation efforts in my region (138)	Before	5.46	3.0	0.002	0.25
	After	5.78
Perceptions of the network b (5-point accuracy scale)
Collective direction: The group has a clear vision of what it needs to achieve in the future (81)	Before	2.80	3.9	<0.001	0.43
	After	3.23
Collective alignment: The work of each individual in the group is well coordinated with the work of others (80)	Before	2.54	3.5	<0.001	0.39
	After	2.93
Collective commitment: People are dedicated to this group’s work even when we face setbacks (81)	Before	3.37	3.9	<0.001	0.43
	After	3.85
Collective accountability: People in the group are held accountable for their commitments (77)	Before	2.65	2.5	0.007	0.28
	After	2.94
Fair processes: We have a fair process for making decisions across the group (78)	Before	2.73	1.7	0.048	0.19
	After	2.99
Open communications: We have a system for communicating across the group that is open and respectful (78)	Before	3.01	1.8	0.038	0.20
	After	3.28

^a This item was not included on the surveys for the Santa Rosa workshop but was for all subsequent workshops. ^b We believe sample sizes are lower here due to survey fatigue on the pre-workshop survey. Some respondents did not continue with the pre-workshop survey after completing an exhaustive portion of the survey associated with developing the network maps.

shares the results of paired sample t-tests examining changes in workshop participant personal dispositions, perceptions of the network of people working on climate adaptation in their region, and knowledge, as reported on pre-workshop and immediate post-workshop surveys. Statistically significant changes were observed for each item at the end of the workshops. Most changes exhibited small effect sizes (Cohen’s d < 0.5), with the exception of medium (Cohen’s d > 0.5) to large (Cohen’s d > 0.8) gains in procedural and relational knowledge. Overall, the workshops had, on average, small but statistically significant effects on participant feelings of optimism, commitment, and freedom to pursue creative solutions for climate adaptation, as well as their perceptions of key qualities of the network, including those about collective direction, alignment, commitment, accountability, fair process, and open communication. Greatest gains were observed in skills (procedural knowledge) associated with planning, identifying, and implementing climate adaptation strategies and in understanding the relationships of priorities of others working on climate adaptation in their region (relational knowledge).

One-hundred and thirty-five respondents answered the open-ended survey question, “What do you feel were the main outcomes of the workshop?” in the immediate post-workshop surveys (

Table 3. Responses about the “main outcomes” of workshop by participants in immediate post-workshop surveys (n = 135).

Code	Definition	Examples	n	% of Those Reporting
Procedural knowledge	Acquisition of skills, knowledge, and behavioral intentions to address climate adaptation.		89	65.9%
Process/tools	New knowledge about tools and processes for climate adaptation planning	“Gained an understanding of a clearly articulated process for integrating adaptation issues/concerns into a formal planning process.”	49	36.3%
Strategy ID	Identification of strategies for climate adaptation	“Discussing climate adaptations, their strategies, and how to actually implement them in Chattanooga.”	38	28.1%
Planning	Contribution to ongoing or new planning efforts	“Including climate change in a more substantial way to the General Plan.”	17	12.6%
Incorporation	Intentions to incorporate climate adaptation into ongoing work	“Getting a better idea of how to include climate change considerations into projects I work on.”	8	5.9%
Relational factors	Any response noting the nature of relationships between participants		67	49.6%
Relationship quality	Enhanced quality of relationships or building of new relationships	“I feel strengthened partnerships with those in my breakout group.”	34	25.2%
Collaboration	Enhanced likelihood of (or actual) collaboration between actors	“Coordination among different County departments on adaptation planning.”	25	18.5%
Relational knowledge	Enhance knowledge of other actors	“I think the most valuable outcomes were the opportunities to get to know each other better and to hear how others are thinking about their work in relationship to climate change in Kalamazoo.”	21	15.6%
Consensus	The achievement of consensus or alignment around proposed actions	“For me, the sense of focus or agreement on top issues.”	4	3.0%
Declarative knowledge/Awareness	Enhanced awareness of climate change, adaptation, or vulnerability.	“Learning about how climate change will affect my local area.” “It made agencies more aware of common issues.”	28	20.7%
Emotional factors	Enhanced feelings of confidence, efficacy, or motivation associated with climate adaptation.	“Empowering to feel we can address issues rather than just being overwhelmed by them.” “Feeling empowered and validated.” “The workshop provided much needed reassurance that there are others working diligently to make things better.”	14	10.4%

). Respondents most commonly noted elements associated with knowledge, skills, and intentions related to taking climate adaptation actions, followed by elements associated with strengthening or creating new relationships, collaborations, or agreements with other entities in the network. Respondents also noted enhanced awareness and positive emotional (confidence, efficacy, or motivational) outcomes, though less frequently.

Post-workshop interviews (within one month of the workshop) largely aligned with open-ended responses to the immediate post-workshop survey (Table 3), though respondents noted some additional personal benefits. Some noted the galvanizing impacts from the camaraderie felt by convening with others with similar concerns for their communities. Some respondents also noted that the workshop helped to identify important entities that were missing from the conversation, spurring some to report intentions to reach out more broadly.

Respondents were asked to report retrospectively in the six-month follow-up survey on their workshop’s impacts on their personal dispositions and learning (

Table 4. Workshop participant perspectives on the extent to which the workshop had a positive influence on them six months later (n = 104).

Positive Influence on	Not at All	Slightly	Somewhat	Very	Extremely
Declarative knowledge
My understanding of the concept of climate adaptation.	1.0%	17.3%	33.7%	31.7%	16.3%
My understanding of the impact of climate change in my region.	1.9%	23.1%	35.6%	33.7%	5.8%
Procedural knowledge
My ability to plan for meaningful local climate adaptation in my region.	1.9%	19.2%	36.5%	36.5%	5.8%
My ability to identify which climate adaptation strategies likely to be most successful.	2.9%	26.0%	40.4%	28.8%	1.9%
My ability to implement climate adaptation strategies.	11.5%	22.1%	37.5%	27.9%	1.0%
Relational knowledge
My understanding of the relationships among the people and groups working on climate adaptation in my location.	1.9%	9.6%	36.5%	41.3%	10.6%
My understanding of the priorities of others engaged in climate adaptation in my region.	1.0%	11.7%	40.8%	34.0%	12.6%
My understanding of how my work aligns with other climate adaptation efforts in my region.	4.8%	22.1%	35.6%	27.9%	9.6%
Personal dispositions
My commitment to being actively engaged in climate adaptation in my area.	3.8%	19.2%	39.4%	26.9%	10.6%
My freedom to pursue creative solutions for climate adaptation.	14.4%	22.1%	32.7%	24.0%	6.7%
My optimism about successful climate adaptation in my region.	7.6%	26.7%	41.0%	19.0%	5.7%

). Positive impacts were reported by the majority of respondents for all workshops, with the strongest positive impacts (>40% reporting very or extremely positive influence) reported for understanding the relationships among the people and groups working on climate adaptation, understanding the concept of climate adaptation, understanding the priorities of others, and the ability to plan for meaningful local climate adaptation. Perceptions about the network (including collective direction, alignment, commitment, accountability, fair processes, and open communication) had fallen back to pre-workshop levels, however (no statistically significant difference: p > 0.05).

Some differences in relational knowledge were noted for online vs. in-person workshops. Participants at in-person workshops reported stronger positive influences of their workshop on understanding the priorities of others engaged in climate adaptation efforts in their region (independent samples t-tests; means: 3.88 vs. 3,31; t = 2.9; p = 0.004; Cohen’s d = 0.66) and understanding the relationships among the people and groups working on climate adaptation (independent samples t-tests; means: 3.88 vs. 3.36; t = 2.7; p = 0.005; Cohen’s d = 0.62). They also demonstrated higher levels of optimism on average about climate adaptation in their region (independent samples t-tests; means: 3.27 vs. 2.76; t = 2.3; p = 0.011).

3.2. To What Extent, If Any, Did the Workshops Stimulate Climate Adaptation Actions? What Constrained Actions?

Table 5. Did the workshop stimulate climate adaptations in the area?

Respondents’ Perceptions	Not at All	A Minor Amount	A Moderate Amount	A Major Amount	I Am Unsure
6 months (n = 103)	3.9%	26.2%	30.1%	15.5%	24.3%
One year (n = 69)	10.1%	34.8%	31.9%	7.2%	15.9%

shares survey respondents’ overall assessments about the impacts of the workshops on climate adaptation actions in their localities. One in-person workshop stood out as the most impactful as reported by respondents, with 94% and 84% of respondents indicating moderate to major impacts of the workshop six months and one year after their participation, respectively. The only other in-person convening in the sample did not yield similar findings. As such, we cannot attribute any differences to the format of the workshop. While “moderate” impacts were reported by at least one respondent one year later for each of the workshops, no other locality reported “major” impacts one year later.

In both surveys (open-ended question) and interviews, respondents reported a wide range of actions related to climate adaptation that they attributed, at least in part, to the workshop. We considered a reported action attributable when reported only if no other workshop participant refuted its attribution to the workshop through a counter-story or other explanation of its occurrence. Attributable impacts of the workshops related to climate adaptation include the following:

• Expanded networks and partnerships; improved and new relationships (8 communities)
• Contributions to the development and/or passage of planning documents incorporating climate adaptation (6 communities)
• Raising awareness, support, and political will in local communities for discussing and/or taking action on climate adaptation (5 communities)
• The development or expansion of educational outreach projects (5 communities)
• Incorporating tools, projections, and new knowledge into regular work, such as choices in vehicle and building design, housing development, and urban planning (5 communities)
• Landscape resilience projects, including planning and planting of “climate smart” trees, community gardens, and other infrastructure development (4 communities)
• Grant applications, including those for planning, energy development, infrastructure improvement, waste system improvement, food system improvement, and a sustainability coordinator position (4 communities)

Although improved relationships were noted across all communities in the immediate post-workshop surveys, new or strengthened relationships were mentioned as a distinct positive impact across seven of the communities six months later. The one exception was a case in which workshop attendance was limited to local government employees. In some cases, these relationships have led to new or expanded climate-adaptation related activities. For example, one participant was invited to provide a presentation for another participant’s constituents in a homeowners’ organization. As a result, they were able to link their extension program on resilient landscaping to a new, and expanding, audience of landowners.

Direct contributions to formal planning processes were reported across six communities. In one case, the workshop and the resulting report contributed directly to a general plan update for the city. In another, respondents reported that the workshop helped to generate the support necessary for the City Council to pass a Climate Action Plan. They were unsure the vote on the Plan would pass without the workshop’s influence on surfacing climate concerns as legitimate issues for a wider array of stakeholders. In three other communities, climate adaptation plans were in various stages of development. In one case in a politically conservative area in which climate change was reportedly often denied or ignored, the head of a planning department reported that the workshop “gave our board a way to include adaptation actions in their strategic planning.” In another case, materials from the workshop contributed to a successful grant proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that established a county-wide sustainability coordinator position over three years focused on developing “county-wide climate adaptation plans that can be used statewide as a model.”

Participants from five communities noted that the workshops helped to raise awareness in their communities about climate adaptation. In some cases, participants reported that the workshops helped to legitimize climate adaptation as a topic worthy of discussion. One participant in charge of Public Works in their city suggested that the workshop provided adequate political cover to openly discuss climate adaptation in meetings where they would not have felt comfortable doing so before. Another from a different community noted that the workshop sparked “formal (scheduled) conversations around the report,” which sustained “thinking around meaningful actions.” Another participant in a different workshop explained in their survey response how the catalyzed conversations about funding climate-adaptation-related initiatives, “The EcoAdapt workshop provided the citywide conversations and prioritization work that made advocating for these funds much smoother and more effective.” In other cases, participants noted general awareness-raising or general broader support from various entities for climate adaptation.

Two communities stood out in terms of particularly meaningful actions attributed to the workshops. In one, participants reported that the workshop led to the crystallization of a partnership of local entities focused on community resilience. This partnership has carried forward many of the strategies identified in the workshop, including formalizing a resilience steering committee, developing and winning official approval for a resilience plan, applying for small and large grants, and drafting a wildfire management plan. Participants suggested several factors that contributed to the workshop’s success. Some participants noted the community’s small size and historical challenges as assets enabling them to coalesce around the workshop and its outputs. Moreover, the community had a long history of navigating complex environmental issues, many associated with hosting one of the largest Superfund sites in the United States. Thus, many community leaders had already worked together in similar contexts. Urgency stemming from a horrific wildfire season and catastrophic regional flooding may have further motivated collaborative action. Post-workshop support from the County Executive, who attended the workshop, encouraged the speedy development of the resilience plan and enabled related grant applications. The workshop report proved helpful for the resilience plan, as entire blocks of text were directly incorporated, enabling its more rapid development by a cadre of community leaders who attended the workshop. The resilience steering committee applied for at least six grants, including successful applications for a $250,000 award and a $20 million EPA grant to create a resilience hub. The funding for the latter was later canceled, however, after the 2024 presidential election. Insights from the workshop are also informing how planners are approaching an ongoing rezoning process as well.

The other of these two communities was unique among the eight regarding environmental justice considerations and outcomes. During the workshop, participants voiced concerns about the inadequate treatment of justice and equity issues in the workshop’s design. As a result, the facilitators pivoted away from following the RVAT process toward more open discussions about these issues. Although several participants expressed frustration or disappointment that the workshop did not seem to yield tangible results, interviews and surveys with a subset of participants revealed the workshop helped to catalyze meaningful action in this arena. They explained how the workshop helped to clarify the connections between climate resilience and social justice, enabling them to successfully advocate for and hire a countywide climate sustainability coordinator, charged with developing a climate action and climate justice plan. Initially, the state had separate initiatives in climate adaptation planning and environmental justice, but participants in the workshop were able to argue for resources to work on both topics together. One participant explained:

They [the state] were trying to figure out how to spend in the most meaningful way to address both climate resilience and environmental justice. And they were thinking of these as two different tracks, so about $150,000 each. And spurred on by what we heard in our workshop, we said, don’t make those separate, make that one pot of money that’s around climate justice, because those things are so deeply intertwined. And if there is only one thing we learned from our … meeting, it was that. Put that money together to explore where that intersection of justice and climate happens, and to help communities figure out a model for that. And we were like, instead of mini grants around the state, why don’t you just choose one community? Really invest in a coordinator who can explore that more deeply and help the local municipalities build their own plans for how to adjust, but have one person who can champion this, and the state went for it, and they just approved it…

Another described the role of the workshop:

I think the biggest one [impact] from the workshop is just this work that (the grant coordinator) is spearheading now. I don’t think that would have happened, and I don’t think we would have been able to so clearly articulate the need, and to be able to rally partners in a way to build support for the grant that’s making (their) position possible…I think the workshop enabled enough conversations to happen that the priorities rose to the top, and we were able to say, see, we need money to make this happen…I think it probably had a pretty significant impact… the trajectory of some of the things that (another group member) has been working on and the relationships we built … just that the connection that (our organization) has now with work happening at the county level, didn’t really happen before. And I do really credit, like the creation of (that) position and the…series of very lucky events that happened that enabled [our community] to receive the funding. To make those conversations happen really was possible because of the EcoAdapt workshop.

These stories highlight the value of pre-existing relationships, local champions committed to the work, a sense of motivating urgency, and the ability of the workshops to generate collective focus and recognition of opportunities. They also note the importance of the broader context and external support for local climate adaptation efforts.

Interviewees also discussed key barriers they felt hindered climate adaptation in their localities. The most mentioned constraint (in six communities) was a lack of political will due to climate denial, particularly among those in power in local communities. In two communities, interviewees reported that this may have been compounded by a lack of apparent immediate climate-related threats. Lack of funding was cited in five communities, and a lack of adequate staffing was mentioned in four, typically associated with government agencies. In four communities, respondents mentioned competing priorities of governing bodies, in particular, affordable housing and tensions with development. Respondents from four communities noted a lack in leadership of climate adaptation work. Some specifically noted the lack of a champion to carry the work forward, while others noted the lack of a specific formal agency or organization to lead in climate adaptation. Respondents in two communities described considerable turnover in both government and non-governmental organizations that ground momentum to a standstill. One respondent noted on the six-month survey,

The workshop was amazing! I had every intention of moving forward with the water group. We communicated through the summer and then things fell apart. We lost a colleague due to illness and I had to take on more work. I could not communicate and push forward with the other members. I did not see anyone else pick up the ball. I regret my inability to keep the group moving forward, we had a good plan and connections.

In another case, turnover of the mayor resulted in deprioritizing of climate adaptation. Two communities noted that “siloing” or clear separation of work between governmental departments also hindered working together on complex issues that cross multiple jurisdictions like climate adaptation. One community noted that a stronger focus on mitigation efforts (reducing carbon emissions) overwhelmed considerations of adaptation.

Some participants expressed that it may still be too early to assess the real impacts of the workshop they attended. One wrote the following in the one-year follow-up survey,

I think it’s still too early to tell what impact the workshop will have. Things move slowly. The workshop gave us very valuable information and tools that create a pathway to move forward. That is huge. No one has the bandwidth to create all that on our own, so having these at our disposal is key. Even just the specific data on climate change in our area- that has been hugely impactful in that many people (local officials) just weren’t aware of it and one can see when they are made aware that it is an eye-opener to them.

We note this time-related element as a limitation of our study, in that some impacts may extend past the scope of our data collection.

3.3. Which Workshop Components or Design Elements Did Participants Value Most?

Data regarding design elements come from both post-workshop interviews that took place with participants within one month of the culmination of the workshop and from the survey administered six months later. In interviews, respondents most commonly highlighted the value of the breakout groups, the RVAT and CCAC tools, and the relationships and relational knowledge they were able to develop throughout the week. Regarding the breakout groups working on the RVAT, one participant wrote, “I thought it was like the most productive work I’ve seen in a workshop ever,” highlighting the value of the tool for focusing the discussion and ensuring a meaningful outcome. Others highlighted the value of the workshop tools for structuring thinking during the workshop as well as communication aids post-workshop: “The concepts of evaluating each element in terms of pre-existing condition, adaptive capacity, vulnerability, and the risk calculator matrix put the picture together… I loved the String ball of relationship [i.e., the network maps] and will share them with my group,” one participant noted. Another wrote “I appreciated the planning tool as we think about internal projects and all the factors to consider. It gives a pathway for having a conversation with leadership.”

Some also highlighted the quality and responsiveness of the facilitation. Participants noted that facilitators supported the process both by ensuring the smooth flow of the event and supplementing participant knowledge. “Having immediate feedback on group worksheets was amazingly helpful. Workshop leaders were expert, knowledgeable, experienced and capable of moving us along at a good pace.” One participant from the environmental justice-focused workshop noted, “I think [the facilitator] did a really good job. Something I took away from the process was what good facilitation looks like in the face of, you know, some storming happening… They became okay with the fact that we weren’t going to probably get to the destination. And that was good, because it was much more about process. It needed to be about process in that moment, so that was inspiring to me.” Some, particularly those who described themselves as existing in the perimeter of the social network of actors at the meeting, also mentioned the utility of the network map for identifying key players.

Table 6. Respondents’ assessments of the value of specific components of the workshops, six months after the workshops.

Element	Not Valuable (1)	Moderately Valuable (2)	Very Valuable (3)
Climate projections from the workshop	5.8%	56.7%	37.5%
Worksheet from the breakout groups (RVAT)	11.5%	51.0%	37.5%
Relationships formed or strengthened during the workshop	12.5%	52.9%	34.6%
Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool	14.4%	55.8%	29.8%
Workshop report	7.0%	64.8%	28.2%
Presentation materials from the workshop	7.7%	65.4%	26.9%
Network maps	23.1%	56.7%	20.2%

Parenthetical numbers were used to calculated the means of each item’s value.

shares responses to the closed-ended survey items assessing specific components of the workshops. In addition to the elements that emerged from the interviews, respondents most commonly noted the high value of localized climate projections shared during the workshops. Many also noted the value of the resulting workshop report and the available materials from plenary presentations. Participants of in-person workshops rated the “relationships” item as more valuable than those attending online workshops (Means: 2.54 vs. 2.12; t = 3.0; p = 0.004). No other significant differences were observed between online and in-person workshops.

3.4. What Did Participants Suggest to Improve the Workshops?

Several participants brought up logistical issues after the first two workshops. These issues were addressed in subsequent workshops. For example, early participants suggested shortening report outs and making the network maps more readily available earlier in the workshops. They also noted that discussing the adaptive capacity of individuals or organizations in the breakout groups felt inappropriate, so the process shifted to considering the adaptive capacity of the community as a whole.

One-hundred and thirty out of 143 respondents to the immediate post-workshop survey provided at least one suggestion to improve the workshop. Few additional unique suggestions were noted during post-workshop interviews, though these interviews provided additional depth to many of the ideas shared in the surveys.

Table 7. Suggestions for improving the workshops.

Suggestion	Workshops	Individuals Reporting
		Online	In-Person
Length/timing/format
Make the workshop longer	8	14	4
In-person would have been better	6	25	0
Shorten the workshop	4	9	0
More breaks	3	3	1
Make it consecutive days	2	2	0
Spread out the meeting with more time in between meetings	2	2	0
Strengthening the network
Broaden the diversity and/number of participants	7	14	4
More time dedicated to networking, relationship development	5	7	1
Mix up membership in breakout groups over course of workshop	3	1	4
Send out invitations earlier	2	3	0
Enhance use of network maps and introduce them earlier	2	2	1
Limit turnover of participants (some were not present for the entirety of the workshop)	1	1	0
Facilitation/content
More tangible examples/case studies of climate adaptation	7	10	1
Improvements to group facilitation	7	9	2
More pre-workshop preparation for participants	5	8	1
Narrow the scope of breakout group topics	5	4	2
Ensure commitments to tangible strategies at end of the meeting	5	6	0
Follow-up meetings	5	4	1
Better online interfaces/clearer visuals	3	4	0
Deeper training on more skills - Suggestions included human behavior change, decision-making, modeling, more technical detail on adaptation strategies	3	1	2
More time in plenary discussion	3	2	1
Greater focus on equity/social issues	2	5	0
More time for breakout groups	2	3	1
Facilitators need better knowledge of the community	2	2	0
Less time in plenary spent on background information	2	0	2

provides a complete summary of all of these suggestions. Here, we discuss the most common themes–those conveyed by at least five participants across at least three workshops.

Of the 27 participants who recommended changes to the duration of the workshop, 18 suggested it should be longer. All of those recommending a shorter duration attended online versions of the workshop. Twenty-five participants in the online workshops suggested that they would have preferred meeting in person.

Suggestions associated with networking were led by calls for greater diversity in the room, especially including people with decision-making power and others for whom participation might be difficult. One participant explained in an interview, “Getting off of work, you almost have to be a city official, or [with] a university to participate in this format.” Participants at two workshops felt that earlier outreach may have helped to diversify and expand the number of people at their workshops. Calls for more time dedicated to networking came mostly from online meetings. Five participants (four of whom attended in-person workshops) suggested mixing up the membership of breakout groups over the course of the workshop, rather than keeping the same roster for each for the entire workshop. They expressed that this might enable more relationship-building and allow people to engage more directly in multiple topics of interest.

Suggestions related to the content and facilitation of the workshops were diverse. The most common involved enhancements to group facilitation and calls for additional examples of successful and/or unsuccessful real-world examples of climate adaptation to help participants better understand the possibilities in their own areas. Comments about facilitation included desires to keep breakout groups on purpose (limiting storytelling and tangents), more attention to building relationships within breakout groups, and reminding participants regularly of their place in the overall process. Nine participants across five workshops suggested that an additional pre-workshop online meeting and/or additional materials might have helped to clarify the goals of the workshop better for a broader array of participants and enabled more efficient use of time at the workshop.

Some participants suggested narrowing the scope of the topics covered by breakout groups. Although facilitators narrowed the number of topics per focus group down to one after the second workshop based on participant feedback, participants from three subsequent workshops noted that further narrowing the scope of the topics considered in the breakout groups may have enabled deeper and more focused sessions.

Only participants in online workshops suggested stronger efforts to ensure that participants would commit to specific steps for addressing climate change at the end of each workshop, indicating that the online format may have dampened the effects of this step for some attendees. Participants from five workshops noted that additional follow-up from the facilitators, most typically in the form of additional meetings, may have helped to keep momentum going after the workshops.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Impacts of the Workshops on Individuals and Communities

The evaluation revealed impacts of the workshops on personal dispositions and learning, as well as tangible climate adaptation planning and action in most cases. The greatest personal gains were observed in declarative, procedural, and relational learning. The workshops were explicitly designed to facilitate all three forms of learning. The workshops promoted declarative knowledge in the form of likely climate vulnerabilities, procedural knowledge by demonstrating a process for engaging with others to develop and prioritize strategies for addressing those vulnerabilities, and relational knowledge in terms of who might play key roles within the process. Pre-post comparisons of personal dispositions, including feelings of individual freedom to act, optimism and personal commitment, were statistically significant and positive but small in terms of effect size. High pre-workshop scores on these measures, especially commitment, suggest that most people inclined to show up to place-based climate adaptation workshops may already be those most committed, already performing related work, and most optimistic about climate adaptation in their localities. Still, over 85% of respondents attributed positive longer-term gains in each of these dispositions to the workshops, with a quarter to over one-third indicating “very” or “extremely” positive impacts.

Taken together, the development and enhancement of the three forms of knowledge and measured positive personal dispositions should theoretically advance feelings of self-efficacy. Bandura [19] suggests that self-efficacy beliefs are strengthened by mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and affective states. In the workshops, participants had the opportunity to build mastery as they practiced with the tools provided. As the facilitated processes revealed the knowledge and motivations of others in breakout groups, participants provided social modeling for each other through their collective engagement. The development of relationships through facilitated dialogues and the social norms created around participation in the group throughout the workshop provided elements of social persuasion [2].

Feelings of self-efficacy and collective efficacy are known to be mutually reinforcing and predictive of taking individual and collective [37,38]. However, we observed wide variation in individual engagement and collective action. Enhanced perceptions related to collective efficacy faded somewhat over time, as other work priorities, resource shortages, political inertia, turnover, and other constraints limited active progress in many cases. Thus, it appears that the workshops, as designed, created potential for effective collaborative governance but may not be sufficient to generate collaborative impact on their own without the presence of other enabling conditions. A shift in focus from vulnerability assessments and strategy identification toward the development and establishment of inclusive governance processes might be necessary to catalyze movement toward the latter [11,39,40,41,42]. However, these efforts often take far more time than a two-to-three-day workshop [11,39,43]. They might also require more purposive efforts to schedule the tangible next steps for action at the conclusion of the workshops to enhance accountability and normative pressure to follow through [13,21]. Despite efforts in recruiting communities to ensure the workshops would be embedded within ongoing planning processes, which the team felt to be an enabling condition of meaningful outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic caused massive shifts in these processes, such that some were not progressing at the time of the workshop (Table 1).

The majority of interviewees attributed at least “minor” impacts on climate adaptation actions in their localities to the occurrence of the workshops, with over 40% suggesting at least “moderate” impacts of the workshops six months and one year later. Factors constraining and catalyzing adaptive action were similar to prior studies [3,10,12,13,27,44]. Key constraints included challenging political environments, insufficient resources, the segmentation or “siloing” of government departments, and turnover of key players. Our study suggests that climate adaptation workshops can plant seeds relevant to addressing many of these challenges. However, their impacts are likely moderated powerfully by the nature of pre-existing relationships and initiatives within host communities, the communities’ current momentum toward (or inertia against) climate adaptation, and the ability to provide ongoing support after the workshop is completed [3,10]. Key enabling factors included the presence of a vibrant and determined local champion, supportive leadership at multiple levels, and linking to ongoing initiatives, similar to prior studies (see also [3,10,13]).

4.2. Implications for Workshop Design

Workshop participants highly valued the climate projections and presentation materials provided by EcoAdapt, the breakout group sessions, the RVAT and CCAC tools, the resulting workshop report, and the relationships that were formed or strengthened during the workshops. Interviews revealed particularly strong appreciation for the breakout groups, which were structured around the RVAT. The RVAT appeared to function as an effective boundary object in these sessions, or an object that can mediate connection between different groups [45,46,47], focusing the attention of participants on a shared task. As witnessed in other studies, facilitated processes focusing on a boundary object, such as a map, model or artifact, can reduce tension and enable trust development among participants [48,49]. Boundary objects can help to create a common vocabulary for clear communication, enable transparency in decision-making, and form the basis of collaborative work [50]. In the case of the RVAT, the process helped to focus participants on a shared problem rather than interpersonal differences, to establish clear criteria for decision-making, and to evaluate options based on those criteria to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. These steps align with the tenets of Principled Negotiation [51] and structured decision-making [52], both well-supported processes for effective collaboration around shared problems.

Feedback from participants emphasized broadening participation, especially of people representing marginalized voices and people holding decision-making power related to climate adaptation. These suggestions align with recommendations from experienced facilitators of similar workshops [3]. Participants at two workshops recommended earlier outreach by local convenors to the community might enable more time to identify a broader array of relevant entities and enable them to clear their schedules to be able to attend. Although stipends and technology were offered to lower barriers to engagement, their relatively low uptake suggests that these efforts were not enough to offset other priorities or challenges related to attending for some. Existing literature suggests that addressing these logistical concerns may be most impactful when combined with language that relates to potential participants’ everyday lives [27,53]. For example, emphasizing “building local capacity to assess the impacts of climate change and developing actions to reduce community vulnerability–all toward enhancing the resilience of [your town] now and into the future,” as invitations did in this study, might not be salient for audiences who have yet to consider climate impacts at a community scale or do not view climate change as a priority issue or concern. Thus, some invitees may have been insufficiently motivated to attend a climate adaptation workshop, especially as they juggle a range of other important concerns. Targeted outreach that purposefully frames material to resonate with the goals and priority issues of community members may help encourage broader [54,55].

Multiple suggestions from participants speak to the importance of clear communication from local conveners to the facilitating team and efforts the conveners can make to ensure diverse perspectives are considered prior to the workshop. For each workshop in this study, the facilitators asked local conveners a long series of questions to better understand local priorities, potential conflicts, and other concerns. These responses fed directly into the design of each workshop and preparation for effective facilitation. However, unexpected issues still occasionally arose, requiring flexibility during the workshops and in-the-moment adaptation by facilitators.

Participants also called for including more tangible examples of climate adaptation, particularly those relevant to the same topics of interest and threats faced by the local community. While facilitators expressed some concerns that specific examples could appear as recommendations and curtail the creativity of participants, more locally relevant examples could enhance feelings of self- and collective efficacy by making solutions feel more tangible and attainable [19,56]. Rogers’ famous and extensive work on the diffusion of innovations [57] supports that being able to observe successful implementation makes similar action more likely.

Research in similar settings suggests the importance of each of these elements: active facilitation to guide participants toward meaningful outcomes, collaborative design based on local needs, and responsiveness to the nuances of local contexts and emergent issues [49,58]. While the overall structure of the RVAT breakout groups provided a format for potential success, facilitators played an important role in keeping groups on track and responding to participants’ interests. Conveners might be able to play a stronger role in establishing baseline knowledge and expectations for the workshops between facilitators and participants. For example, in research on collaborative landscape management in settings across the United States, Coleman & Stern [48] found that groups that spent more time establishing a clear set of rules and expectations upfront, prior to entering into planning processes, performed better than those that did not, especially in terms of developing trust and implementing on-the-ground actions. Spending more time and energy up front to collaboratively establish a clear compact or charter might prove beneficial to climate adaptation workshops as well–especially if a wide range of diverse participants are involved [27].

Suggestions for longer-term engagement by the facilitation team mirror multiple calls and evidence from the literature that longer-term engagements tend to produce better results [3,10,59,60,61]. In this study, specific suggestions included additional pre-workshop calls and preparation, follow-up meetings, and making the workshop longer. The EcoAdapt team developed and shared a follow-up report, maintained all materials on a workshop support website, and remained on-call to provide support and advice. They also hosted an optional (and fully funded) meeting of local conveners at the 2024 National Adaptation Forum to discuss progress and lessons learned. However, no additional funding was available for more active long-term facilitation of next steps within the participating communities.

Many participants also wanted more opportunities for meaningful interactions with a greater number of fellow attendees during the workshops, especially in online settings. Some suggested crossover of membership and/or interaction between the breakout groups. Time constraints limited the extent to which information could be shared across breakout groups, and the facilitators chose to maintain continuity of group membership to enable participants to complete the vulnerability assessments and develop adaptation strategies, which precluded the creation of new groupings. Gallery walks (during in-person meetings) and short report-outs fostered cross-pollination between topics and helped to mitigate curiosity about other groups’ work to some extent, but they likely did not match the relational learning and relationship development occurring within breakout groups. This may have been particularly acute in online meetings, where shared meals and mingling between sessions did not occur.

While the sample is rather small to draw powerful conclusions about meeting format, our findings suggest that in-person workshops were more effective in terms of relationship-building outcomes. Other outcomes, however, did not appear to differ systematically across workshop types. These findings mirror those of similar studies, which have found that in-person conferences tend to outperform online conferences in terms of networking and relationship-building but not necessarily in terms of other forms of learning [62,63]. We cannot draw clear conclusions about the comparative long-term impacts of the two formats, nor do we have data regarding how the different formats might have enabled or precluded the attendance of a broader array of participants.

5. Limitations

Our findings are limited most notably in two ways. First, surveys conducted immediately following workshops may have been susceptible to both response shift and social desirability bias. Response shift occurs when participants’ lack of understanding of a concept puts the validity of pre-workshop responses in question [64]. For example, one might believe they have a good understanding of the concept of climate adaptation prior to a workshop but recognize deficiencies during the workshop when they become better educated on the subject. As a result, changes in actual understanding become hard to measure. Social desirability bias occurs when respondents provide answers to surveys that they believe will be viewed favorably by others [65]. After building relationships with facilitators, some upward bias might be expected in evaluating their performance and the immediate impacts of the workshops. Second, and perhaps most notably, our investigations of the impacts of the workshops are limited to the reporting of individuals who agreed to follow-up interviews. With varying sample sizes, we may have missed some direct impacts of the workshops. When conflicting perspectives were shared, we decided to take the most conservative approach we could and only attribute actions to the workshop when no confounding evidence was available to potentially refute the claim. As the study progressed beyond one year following each workshop, our interviews were mainly limited to the primary conveners of the workshops. Although we followed current events and news stories in each community, it is possible that these research participants were unaware of some of the workshops impacts, leading to under-reporting of effects.

6. Conclusions

Our evaluation of the impacts of eight place-based climate adaptation workshops in the United States yielded evidence of both short-term and longer-term impacts. Immediately following the workshops, participants exhibited statistically significant gains in (1) declarative, relational, and procedural knowledge; (2) personal dispositions including perceived personal freedom to engage in creative solutions for climate adaptation, optimism about climate adaptation in their area, and personal commitment to work on the problem; and (3) positive perceptions of the network of actors engaged in climate adaptation. Six months later, participants continued to report gains in each form of knowledge and personal disposition. However, perceptions of the qualities of the network (direction, alignment, commitment, collective accountability, fair processes, and open communications) diminished to pre-workshop levels. Participants reported mostly “minor” to “moderate” impacts of the workshop on climate adaptation in their localities, with one workshop achieving “major” impacts. The study supports the idea that place-based climate adaptation workshops can be meaningful catalysts to climate adaptation in communities. However, they may not be sufficient on their own to ensure effective collaborative action. With a wide variety of external circumstances at play, including social and political challenges and tradeoffs, turnover of key people, and competition for limited resources, workshops represent one potentially meaningful tool to enhance local climate adaptation efforts within the framework of larger sociopolitical factors that can influence these outcomes. Given waning support for climate adaptation at the federal level in the United States, regional and local capacity-building and network strengthening, such as that built with these workshops, may be especially important in the years to come.